vol. 52, no. 8

Primary tabs

aclu news


NON PROFIT


ORGANIZATION


U.S. POSTAGE


PAID


Permit.No. 4424


San Francisco, CA


Volume LIl


December 1987


No. 8


Doctors Challenge


- Parental Consent Law


r ; Vhe constitutionality of the new Cali-


= fornia law requiring a minor to have


the written consent of a parent or a


court order before she can have an abortion


is being challenged by a prestigious coalition


of medical associations and health care pro-


viders represented by the ACLU of North-


ern and Southern California and the


Adolescent Health Care Project of the


National Center for Youth Law.


On November 23, attorneys filed the law- 0x00B0


suit (American Academy of Pediatrics v.


Van de Kamp) in San Francisco Superior


Court on behalf of the American Academy


of Pediatrics, California District LX: the


California Medical Association; the Ameri-


can College of Obstetricians and Gynecolo-


gists, District IX; Planned Parenthood of


Alameda/San Francisco; and Philip Dar-


ney, M.D.,. Director of San Francisco


-General's Family Planning Clinic.


In September, the California Legislature


passed AB 2274, a bill which imposes crim-


inal penalties on persons who perform abor-


tions on minors without parental consent or


a judicial order. The bill was signed by the


Governor and is due to go into effect on


January 1, 1988.


Linda Shostak, a cooperating attorney


from the law firm of Morrison and Foerster


said, "The Legislature says the consent law is


necessary to protect teenagers' health. If that


is the reason behind the consent law, then the


law is unnecessary. Doctors and nurses


already do an excellent job of looking after


minors' medical needs and making sure that


minors understand the medical procedures


that are involved.


Ruling Declares INS Raid


S


Speakers at the press conference announcing the challenge to California's parental consent -


law included (l.-r.) Charlotte Newhart of the American College of Obstetricians and


Gynecologists, Dr. Birt Harvey of the American Academy of Pediatrics, ACLU Sacra-


mento lobbyist Marjorie Swartz and ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret Crosby.


"T suspect that the real reason behind the


consent law is to rehash the constitutional


debate over the right to an abortion. But the


courts have clearly and repeatedly stated


that the right to abortion is a matter of


individual choice and the subject should be


regarded as closed," Shostak added.


Serious reprisals


ACLU-NC | staff attorney Margaret


Crosby added, "The California Constitution


Violated Rights


precedent-setting ruling by the U.S.


: A District Court in San Francisco on


November 23 declared that the


Immigration and Naturalization Service


(INS) unconstitutionally violated the rights


of individuals while conducting workplace


raids in search of undocumented workers.


Judge Robert P. Aguilar ruled that the


INS use of a "general" warrant to search for,


_seize, and arrest persons who were not spe-


cifically named in the search warrant was


"patently invalid." Judge Aguilar rejected


the INS contention that the warrant merely


authorized entry into business premises, cal-


ling it an "Orwellian attempt to contradict


the literal language of the warrant."


The ruling strongly condemned the INS


effort to "recast, recharacterize or otherwise


misrepresent the warrant," stating that the


warrant was unconstitutional because it


"gave a license for the INS to seize people


simply because they were `suspected of being


illegal aliens, whatever that means." |


The ruling, handed down in U.S. District


Court in San Jose where the suit (/nterna-


tional Molders Union vy. Nelson) was filed,


invalidates a warrant executed during a raid


of a Sonoma County poultry plant.


Although the ruling technically applies only


to the northern California jurisdiction of the


INS,


Oregon border, because of the ruling, the


INS is expected to reconsider its practice


concerning workplace raids in other parts of


the country as well. The ruling also may


affect the manner in which the INS will


stretching from Bakersfield to the -


guarantees all persons, including minors, an


explicit right to privacy regarding the deci-


sion whether to bear children. :


"The choice the Legislature has given to


California adolescents from hostile home


environments-to tell parents of their preg-


nancy and abortion, and suffer serious rep-


risals, or to navigate a difficult court


procedure- unduly burdens the privacy


rights of teenagers."


Although new to California, parental not-


conduct workplace surveys under the new


immigration law, the Immigration Reform


and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986.


Under the new law, all public and private


employers must certify that all employees .


hired after November 6, 1986 are authorized


to work in the United States. The INS is |


charged with enforcing that requirement.


Unlawful Searches


The suit was filed in 1982 by the


ACLU-NC, Mexican American Legal


Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF),


California Rural Legal Assistance and other


civil rights organizations which charged the


INS with violating employers' and


-employees Fourth Amendment rights'to be


free from unlawful searches and seizures.


"This ruling is a major victory for workers


and employers," said "Francisco Garcia-


Rodriguez of MALDEE "It tells the INS in


no uncertain terms that it can no longer act


as a renegade law enforcement agency oper- ~


continued on p. 4


_ ification and consent statutes have been put


into effect in a number of other states. Last - .


year, the national ACLU Reproductive Free-


dom Project succeeded in striking down a


similar measure in Minnesota. The decision


that the Minnesota law was unconstitu-


tional was unanimously affirmed by the


appellate court on August 27.


"Evidence from Minnesota, Massachu-


setts and other states where laws requiring


parental consent or court orders were


enforced clearly shows the devastating


impact these laws have on teenagers," said


attorney Abigail English of the National


Center for Youth Law's Adolescent Health


Care Project.


"These laws significantly increase health


risks to minors by causing necessary medical


care to be delayed and by impairing the


ability of health providers to give quality


care," English said. "These laws punish -


young women for becoming pregnant, they


do not promote family harmony, improve


parent-child communication or help with


the minor's decision making process."


These charges are verified by over 20


declarations included in the lawsuit from


judges who were involved in the judicial _


bypass proceedings, health researchers, psy-


chologists, doctors and nurses who provide


counseling and abortions to teenagers, law-


yers and social workers.


For example, a judge in Juvenile Court in


Minnesota who has. heard more than 225


petitions from minors seeking abortions


(and granted all but one) said "the stress was


continued on p. 4


aclu news


2 december 1987


Bill of Rights Day Draws"


- _ Record Crowd


Reynoso Receives Earl Warren Award


he California Supreme Court knew


( how to ask the right questions. What


is democracy all about? What is fair-


ness all about? Or justice? Last year, I felt


- sorry for the people of California-but not


for us as individuals." _


With this poignant reflection, Justice


-Cruz Reynoso accepted the Earl Warren


Civil Liberties Award on behalf of himself,


-Chief Justice Rose Bird and Justice Joseph


Grodin at the ACLU-NC's fifteenth annual


Bill of Rights Day Celebration on


" December 6 at the Sheraton Palace Hotel in


San Francisco.


said the former California Supreme Court


justice who was one of eleven children of


farmworker parents. "I grew up in a divided


society, divided between barrios and non-


barrios, rich and poor, Mexican (they called


us Mexican even though we were born here)


and white, them and us.


'"T had a sense this was not good for


America.


"And I felt a sense of rage when I was in


the Army in Washington, D.C. and my -


black buddy was not allowed to enter a


restaurant across from the White House.


That was in 1953.


Justice Cruz Reynoso is presented with Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award by Drucilla


Ramey of the Bar Association of San Francisco (I.) while ACLU-NC Chair Nancy


Pemberton looks on.


The event, emceed by ACLU-NC chair-


person Nancy Pemberton, featured the


awarding of the justices, a keynote address


by National Public Radio senior news ana-


lyst Daniel Schorr and the presentation of


the Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award to Fresno


Chapter leader Howard Watkins (see box).


The Celebration, which drew a capacity


crowd of 750 despite raging storms outside,


opened with an Annual Report by executive


director Dorothy Ehrlich.


"What better way to celebrate the bicen-


tennial of the Constitution," asked Ehrlich,


"than to celebrate our collective victory of


blocking Robert Bork's confirmation to the


U.S. Supreme Court?


"The celebration highlights the valuable


work that the ACLU can do when galvan-


ized to action and also is a credit to our field


program. It pays tribute to the individuals


and movements-for women's rights, minor-


ities, gays, labor-that brought about that


victory," Ehrlich said.


Justice Reynoso, who was introduced by


Drucilla Ramey, former chair of the


ACLU-NC and current executive director of


the Bar Association of San Francisco, as


having "risen above his law school origins," _


spoke of the social injustices which sur-


rounded his youth and impelled him to a


career in public service law and a lifelong


commitment to the fight for equality.


"I grew up in Orange County, where we


had segregated schools-segregated by law,"


"So, in 1954, when the Warren Court


decided Brown vy. Board of Education,


although that decision spoke to the whole


country, I took it practically as a personal


message to me.


"That is why receiving the Earl Warren


Award is very touching and very special,"


_ said Justice Reynoso, adding that though his


days as a Supreme Court justice are over,


"our task does not end."


Keynote speaker Daniel Schorr of National


Public Radio


Keynote speaker Daniel Schorr, speaking


on the eve of the summit between Ronald


Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, asked with


a note of irony, "If Ronald Reagan is willing


to say that war with the USSR is not inevit-


able, is he also willing to say that war with


Americans is not inevitable as well? For


Reagan has been at war against our civil


liberties, against the First Amendment. Is


Reagan willing to say that war against the


poor is not inevitable?"


The veteran journalist who risked a jail


term for refusing to reveal his sources of


government leaks during the Watergate


period, said that the Reagan administration


is marked by "ideological purity and moral


corruption."


"Every time Reagan speaks, he makes at _


least three mistakes per sentence," said


Schorr. "This has put an imprint on politics,


because now we don't believe anything poli-


ticians say. Reagan has established a new


political principle-you invent your image


and then you have to be what you say you


are. He is the first `all media' president.


"Reagan says he doesn't like the news


media. That's not exactly true. He likes the


media-he just doesn't like the news part of


Te


Schorr noted that the legacy of the Rea-


gan presidency has been to "cheapen and


tarnish the currency of government. You


don't get it all back," Schorr warned, "but


you can get some of it back if you have


faith-and you, in the ACLU, have it."


The event is the culmination of the


ACLU-NC_ fundraising campaigns and


commemorates the anniversary of the sign-


ing of the Bill of Rights.


Ravinder Grewal


Howard


Hes Watkins, who has: been des-


cribed as "the backbone of the


Fresno ACLU-NC Chapter," is an attor-


ney, organizer, radio commentator and


social activist, who has been rocking the


boat for a long time.


At the December 6 Bill of Rights Day


Celebration, Watkins was honored with


the Lola Hanzel Advocacy Award. This


award was established to honor all


ACLU-NC yolunteers and is presented


each year to an individual who has made


an extraordinary contribution to the


organization in a voluntary capacity. It is


named in honor of Lola Hanzel, a dedi-


cated ACLU volunteer who served the


affiliate for more than a decade before her


death in 1980.


ACLU-NC _ staff attorney Alan


Schlosser, on presenting the award to


Watkins, called him "a rare person who


political savvy."


Noting Watkins' successful efforts to


revive the Fresno Chapter, as well as his


activism in the Fresno County Bar Asso-


ciation (Watkins just completed a term as


President), Common Cause, the Wom-


en's International League for Peace and


Freedom (WILPF) and other commun-


itv organizations, Schlosser called Wat-


kins "a walking coalition."


Schlosser also commended Watkins'


lawyering skill as an ACI.U-NC cooper-


ating attorney in W/LPF yen. Fresno. The


peace organization wanted to put bus


signs up saying "Think before you regis-


ter for the draft." Although the signs went


up. the City Manager had them ripped


down two days later. "Unfortunately, this


combines boundless enthusiasm with


Watkins


~ Howard Watkins


case -which we lost at the Court of


Appeal-was set for argument just after


the November 1986 elections, and the


new Supreme Court decided not to hear


this important political speech case,"


Schlosser explained.


Watkins said that receiving the award


"made my year."


Chronicling his own involvement in


campaigns for peace and social justice .


from the civil rights movement of the 50's


and 60's, the anti-war movement of the


60's and 70's, and during the Reagan


administration, Watkins said, "Every


decade has been a difficult and dangerous


time. | am proud that the ACLU has been


in the forefront of the key struggles of my


lifetime."


aclu news


8 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 :


Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page


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


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


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


Elaine Elinson, Editor


aclu news _


december 1987. 3


NCAA Drug Tests


n November 19, after a two-week


O trial, a Santa Clara Superior Court


judge ruled that the NCAA drug


testing program violates the California Con-


stitution in that "there is no evidence of a


`compelling need' to engage in drug testing


of college athletes."


On issuing a preliminary injunction pro-


_ hibiting the mandatory drug testing of Stan-


ford student athletes other than male


basketball and football players, Judge Con- (c)


rad Rushing said, "This program treats _


these athletes not only as if they were sus-


pected criminals, but also punishes them for


consuming perfectly legal over-the-counter


cold medications.


"The paradox of this testing program is


that an accused criminal of the most serious


crime is afforded more rights than our


athletic heroes," Judge Rushing stated in a


36-page opinion.


The -ACLU-NC is representing Jennifer


Hill, captain of the Stanford women's soccer


team, and Barry McKeever, starting football


linebacker, in their challenge to the NCAA


drug testing program. The lawsuit was orig-


inally filed on behalf of Stanford diver


Simone LeVant, who won a preliminary


`injunction allowing her to compete without


consenting to drug testing in mar, LeVant


graduated in June.'


The student athletes are represented by


ACLU-NC cooperating attorneys Robert


Van Nest and Susan Harriman of Keker and


Brockett and ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed


Chen,


Van Nest lauded the ruling as a victory for


the privacy rights of athletes and said he


expected that schools across the country will


challenge the NCAA program.


Stanford University intervened in the case


in August backing the students' challenge.


Expert Witnesses


During the two-week trial in October,


both sides presented expert witnesses, many


of whom criticized the accuracy and effec-


tiveness of urinalysis tests.


. Linebacker McKeever described at the


trial the "degrading and humiliating" expe-


rience of being drug tested before last year's


Gator Bowl game. "It's hard sitting there


with a beaker in your hand and watching


someone make you give the sample, know-


ing the sample could determine your future,"


he said.


"It's very tough to decide to choose


`between giving up your basic rights and


giving up such a big part of your life. I really


didn't have a choice," McKeever added. (c)


On December 4, Judge Rushing held a


hearing to examine a proposed NCA A-test-


ing program for football and men's basket-


ball players. He ruled that testing of those


athletes must be limited to steroids, cocaine.


and amphetamines. Judge Rushing found


the NCAA's list of banned drugs, which


contains over 3000 different substances,


overbroad.


Graphic Artists


Designers


The Earl Warren Chapter (Alameda


County) needs your help preparing its


booth for Festival at the Lake, 1988.


Please contact Beth Weinberger,


839-2743.


Tenant's


Campaign Signs


n November 14, the ACLU-NC filed a


lawsuit in San Francisco Superior


Court on behalf of a tenant who was denied


- the right to post a mayoral campaign sign in


the window of his apartment in the Stones-


town apartment complex.


ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Steven


Mayer said that tenant Landis Whistler


wrote his manager twice requesting permis-


sion to post an "Art Agnos for Mayor" sign.


`Both times Whistler was refused. The Sto-


nestown leases include a provision saying


that tenants must get the landlord's approval


for posting signs in the windows of their


homes.


Although Stonestown Corporation


agreed the morning the suit was filed to


allow tenants to post campaign signs for the


_San Francisco mayor election, the suit asks


that tenants be allowed to post signs during.


all political campaigns.


Mayer said that the policy of barring signs


is illegal. "Section 1942.5 of the Civil Code


makes it unlawful to evict a tenant exercising


`anv rights under the law.'


"The lease provision unreasonably cur-


tails a tenant's fundamental right to engage


in political expression in his or her own


home," said Mayer, adding that the issue is


particularly significant in`a city like San


Francisco where two-thirds of the residents


live in apartments and similar lease prove


sions are not uncommon.


A hearing on the preliminary injunction


has been set for December. 16.


_ This is the second ACLU-NC suit in as


many months on behalf of tenants who wish


to post campaign signs in their apartment


windows. On October 14, Mayer and


~ ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser


won a Temporary Restraining Order in San


Francisco Superior Court allowing tenants


in the Parkmerced apartment complex to:


post mayoral campaign signs in the windows


of their homes.


Graduation Prayer


ess than one month after the California


Supreme Court unanimously decided


to let stand an appellate court ruling barring


prayers from public high school graduation


ceremonies, Livermore school district trus-


tees voted not to appeal the decision to the


U.S. Supreme Court.


On a 3-2 vote, the school po decided


on November 10 not to appeal the July


Court of Appeal's ruling that the prayer was


an improper state endorsement of religion"


and an intrusion on students' religious


liberty.


That decision closes the case on a


precedent-setting challenge to school prayer


which began in 1983 when Leslie Ann Ben-


nett, then a senior at Granada High School


in Livermore, risked insults and threats to


oppose the inclusion of a pie in. her


graduation ceremony.


Bennett was represented by ACLU-NC


staff attorney Margaret Crosby, who suc-


ceeded in obtaining an injunction on gra-


duation eve prohibiting the inclusion of the


prayer, and who carried on the four-year -


challenge in the courts.


Bennett, now an airline employee in


Legal Briefs


southern California, said, "A prayer at gra-


duation, no matter what religion, is still


infringing on my right not to pray if I don't


want to."


Crosby noted that this is the first ruling


which will have an effect statewide on the


many other school districts which include


religious invocations in their graduation


ceremonies.


"It's very good news for the many students


who will now no longer have prayer at their


graduation ceremonies, because school-


sanctioned religion is divisive and makes


many students feel like outsiders if they don't


share the majority faith," Crosby said.


Roadblocks


ith a 4-3 decision, the California


Supreme Court ruled on October 29


that drunk driving roadblocks set up by the


California Highway Patrol and local police


departments do not violate drivers' constitu-


tional rights.


The roadblocks were challenged by the


ACLU-NC in a taxpayers lawsuit filed in


1984 charging that the police roadblocks


violated the Fourth Amendment, the Cali-


fornia Constitution and California law. The


lawsuit, /ngersoll v. Palmer, was filed just


days before the CHP and police depart-


ments set up roadblocks in a number of


communities for the holiday season.


The court majority, in an opinion


authored by Justice Marcus Kaufman,


stated that the random stops caused by the


roadblocks were "administrative inspec-


tions" and not criminal investigations.


However, Justice Allen Broussard, in a


stinging dissent, wrote, "When uniformed


law enforcement officers stop motorists to


check them for intoxication, shine a light in


the car to look for open containers of alcohol


.. with a special officer ready to administer


blood alcohol tests and booking officers and


police vans ready to take offenders to jail, it


is not an administrative inspection, but an


ordinary police detention.


"If we abandon constitutional protections


to combat every abhorrent crime which has


captured the public's attention, we will find


ourselves naked and unprotected in a hurry."


The dissent was joined by Justices nok and -


Panelli.


The lawsuit was filed by former


ACLU-NC staff attorney Amitai Schwartz,


who called the decision "a real erosion of


privacy." :


ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser


said that the decision will probably not be


appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Ballot Arguments


I a ruling which may have a chilling effect


on political expression,


Appeal decided on October 10 that an indi-


vidual who signs a ballot initiative argument -


_ that is ruled to be false or misleading can be


required to pay the legal costs of the person


who challenges the argument. 2


The ACLU-NC represented Anna Rab-


kin, Berkeley's elected city auditor, who was


ordered by a superior court judge to pay her


opponents' legal fees of over $3,000 for


allegedly making incorrect statements on a


city ballot measure concerning recycling in


November 1984.


the Court of -


ACLU-NC attorneys Amitai Schwartz -


" and Margaret Crosby argued that an award


of attorneys fees, with no finding that Rab-


kin was negligent, much less willfully false,


can have a severe chilling effect on the wil-


lingness of persons to write and sign ballot


arguments on controversial issues in the


voters handbooks.


Rabkin's defense also argued that such a


judgment raises state and federal constitu-


tional questions of free speech and the right


to petition for redress of grievances.


Justice James Scott, writing for the appel-


late court, disagreed. The opinion stated


that an award of attorneys fees is a legitimate


way to encourage private enforcement of


campaign laws and does not violate free


speech rights of those who sign ballot


arguments.


Rabkin has decided not to pursue an


appeal to the state Supreme Court.


Private Prisons


n behalf of a state taxpayer, the


Ox: of Northern and Southern


California and the Prison Law


Office filed a lawsuit on November 17 in


Sacramento Superior Court to stop the


Department of Corrections from continuing


to expand the prison system by contracting


with private for-profit firms to run prisons


for parole violators.


One privately-run prison is now operating


in La Honda; two more are set to open in


southern California in the next few months;


several more are planned to open next year.


All will house parole violators.


The lawsuit charges that the privately-


operated prisons are illegal because the


Legislature has not authorized construction


of these facilities, and because the operation


of the private prisons constitutes an unlaw-


ful delegation of the state's police Boyes to


private individuals.


Although Judge Joseph A. DeCristoforo


denied a Temporary Restraining Order


(TRO) to stop one of the Southern Califor-


nia prisons from being opened in November,


the attorneys are continuing to seek a judg-


ment prohibiting the California Department


of Corrections (CDC) from contracting out


the business of incarcerating felons.


According to Donald Specter, Director of


the Prison Law Office, "The contracts are an


end run around the Legislature and the


people of California. By unilaterally issuing


these contracts, the CDC is making political


decisions about whether to build prisons and


where they should be located without con-


sulting anyone."


"Private prisons are unconstitutional, 2


said ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen.


"Traditionally the power to arrest and con-


fine criminals rests with the state. Now the


CDC is letting praht neki corporations


take over this role.


"Because of the contract: these private


firms will have an incentive to incarcerate


more people. This will create a `prison-


industrial complex' which will have a finan-


cial interest in perpetuating the prison con-


struction program. |


"Already the CDC spends $1.2 billion a


year-taking funds which might be spent on


the university system and other social pro-


grams," Chen added. (c)


The lawsuit is asking that the CDC either


take over the private prisons or shut them


down. A hearing on the preliminary injunc-


tion has been set for December 22.


aclu news


4 december 1987


In Memoriam _


Stephen Cone


he tragic crash of the PSA plane on


December 7 robbed the San Fran-


cisco legal community of Stephen E.


Cone, one of its finest young lawyers.


Cone served as a cooperating .attorney


with the ACLU-NC.


_ Cone, a partner in the San Francisco


law firm of Farrella, Braun and Martel,


was a 1976 graduate of Hastings College


of the Law where he also taught legal


writing.


As an ACLU-NC cooperating attor-


ney, Cone worked with staff attorney


Margaret Crosby in authoring an amicus


brief on associational privacy rights in


the case of Cohen v. Superior Court. The


lawsuit challenged a San Francisco ordi-


nance which established a comprehen-


sive. regulatory scheme for "escort


services," requiring that such services


maintain a daily register, open to the


police, showing the names and addresses


of patrons. When the lawsuit was settled,


the ordinance was altered to provide


greater privacy protection.


Cone is survived by his wife, Barbara,


and their 18-year-old son, Christopher.


The family has asked that gifts in his


memory be given to the ACLU-NC


Foundation of Northern California.


2 =


Mike Kurtz


ike Kurtz, a Board member of the


ACLU-NC Gay Rights Chapter,


died of AIDS on October 9, his thirty-


third birthday.


Kurtz, a graduate of the University of -


Southern California in Cinema Produc-


tion, was an indoor landscape gardener


in Davis. He was a director of Persons


with AIDS and served as a media coordi-


nator for the California Community


AIDS Network.


~ As an active member of the Gay


Rights Chapter board, Kurtz worked on


the broad distribution of the ACLU-NC's


"AIDS and Civil Liberties" policy guide


and on educating the public and state -


legislators about AIDS legislation.


Doug Warner, chair of the Gay Rights


Parental Consent Law


continued from p. |


unusually acute for these young women,


who were forced to disclose very intimate


and personal matters to strangers."


Unsafe conditions


A Minnesota nurse explained that minors


would skip school and travel a great dis-


tance-often in unsafe conditions and sleep-


`ing in the street or in a car-to have their


petitions heard in another county. She told


of a teenager whose parents beat up her


boyfriend in the abortion clinic, and later


kicked her out of the home.


A Colorado psychologist reported the


added danger to teenagers from abusive or


dysfunctional families-those most reluc-


tant to speak to their parents about a preg-


nancy. "It is my opinion that notice of a


daughter's pregnancy would enrage a batter-


ing father. It would be like showing a red


cape to a bull. The California statute [would


make it] exceptionally difficult for a minor


who comes from a dysfunctional family to


choose and complete the court bypass


procedure. Going to court would be a risk of


exposure which would create a higher risk of -


abuse," she wrote.


In Massachusetts, a statewide study esti-


mated that of all teenage abortion patients


50% obtain parental consent, 17% use the


court bypass, and fully one-third go out of


state to avoid the parental consent


requirement.


High abortion rate


Declarations from rural and urban health


care workers in California underscore that


these same devastating repercussions would


Chapter, said, "As a Chapter Board


member for the last two years, Mike


contributed greatly to the Chapter's


efforts to promote and defend civil liber-


ties in general, and lesbian and gay rights


in particular.


"Mike's struggle against AIDS was


valiant; his unfailing good humor, bright


outlook and commitment to battling the


epidemic of fear, ignorance and political


demagoguery surrounding the disease


have inspired us all," Warner said.


Kurtz leaves his companion, Michael


Williams, his father, Robert Kurtz, two


brothers and a sister. A memorial was


held in San Francisco on October 23.


_ Gifts in honor of Mike Kurtz may be


sent.to Gay Rights Chapter, ACLU-NC,


1663 Mission St., #460, San Francisco


94103.


be duplicated here if the law goes into effect


in January. In 1982, the latest year for which


data is available, there were an estimated:


30,220 abortions for girls under the age of 18


in California. California has the second


highest pregnancy rate for teenagers and one


of the highest abortion rates for this age


group.


The plaintiffs reflect a strong consensus


from the medical community that the law


will increase the health risk for pregnant


teenagers. Mary Luke, Executive Director


of Planned Parenthood of Alameda/San


Francisco said, "This measure will have


serious, dangerous consequences for many


young women wanting abortion services.


Teens already delay seeking.medical care


when they suspect they are pregnant," she


said. "Those teens who could not speak to


their parents or handle the court bureau-


cracy would risk later term, and possibly.


unsafe, self-induced abortions."


Dr. Birt Harvey, Chair of the American


Academy of Pediatrics, District IX, added,


"The government of this state should not, by


establishing barriers to health services,


essentially usurp an adolescent's right to


terminate her pregnancy.


"If the government put as much effort into


helping adolescents as it does into prevent-


ing abortions, we would have more young


women continuing their education and


becoming active, productive citizens and.


fewer unwanted and unloved children grow-


ing up in our society," Dr. Harvey concluded.


Plaintiffs are asking the court to issue an


injunction to prevent the implementation of


the law. Defendants in the suit are California


Attorney General John Van de Kamp and


the District Attorneys of all 58 California


counties. A hearing has been set for


December 21.


Chapter Meetings


B.A.R.K. (Berkeley Area) CHAPTER


MEETING: (Usually fourth Thursday)


Thursday, January 28. Contact Florence Pili-


avin, 415/848-5195.


EARL WARREN 0x00A7 (Oakland/ Alameda


County) CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually


third Wednesday) Special membership orien-


tation/ project planning meeting: Wednesday,


January 20, 7:30 p.m., 1021 Ashmount Drive.


All chapter members urged to attend! Con-


tact Paul Bernstein, 415/658-0502 (eve), or


Lauren Leimbach, 415/655-7339 (eve).


GRAPHIC ARTISTS, DESIGNERS and


Others Similarly Skilled: The Earl Warren


Chapter needs your help preparing its booth


for Festival at the Lake, 1988. Please contact


Beth Weinberger, 415/839-2743.


FRESNO CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually


third Tuesday) Tuesday, January 19, 5:30 p.m.


Planned Parenthood Office. Contact Mindy


Rose, 209/486-7735 (eve).


GAY RIGHTS CHAPTER MEETING:


Tuesday, January 5, 7 p.m., ACLU-NC, 1663


Mission Street, San Francisco. NOTE: chap-


~ ter meeting day may be changed in the future.


Contact Doug Warner: 415/621-3900.


MARIN CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually


third Monday). Monday, January 18, 7:30


p.m., Citicorp Bank, 130 Throckmorton


Avenue, Mill Valley. Contact Eileen Siedman,


415/383-0848.


MID-PENINSULA - (Palo


CHAPTER MEETING:


Wednesday) Special meeting on police practi-


ces with ACLU-NC Police Practices attorney


_John Crew: Wednesday, January 27, 8 p.m.,


All Saints Episcopal Church, 555 Waverly,


Room 15, Palo Alto. Contact Harry Anis-


gard, 415/856-9186.


MONTEREY CHAPTER MEETING:


Annual Meeting: Saturday, January 30, 2-5


p.m., Monterey County Library; guest


speaker: Erwin Knoll, editor of The Progres-


sive magazine.. For more information, con-


tact Dick Criley, 408/624-7562.


MT. DIABLO (Contra Costa County)


CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually fourth


Tuesday or Wednesday) Wednesday, January


27, Tuesday, February 23. Contact Lowell


Richards, 415/939-ACLU.


NORTH PENINSULA (San Mateo area)


CHAPTER MEETING: (Usually second


Monday) Monday, January I1; Tuesday, Feb-


ruary 8. Contact Bob Delzell, 415/343-7339.


Alto area)


(Usually fourth -


Chapter Calendar


SACRAMENTO VALLEY CHAPTER


MEETING: (Usually second Wednesday)


7:30 pm. Wednesday, January 13; Wednesday,


February 10. County Administration Build-


ing, 7th and I Streets, Sacramento. Organiz-


ing now for April "Bicentennial Forum."


Contact Joe Gunterman, 916/447-8053.


SAN FRANCISCO CHAPTER MEET-


ING: (Usually fourth Tuesday) Tuesday, Janu-


ary 26, 6 p.m. ACLU-NC office, 1663 Mission


Street, San Francisco. Contact Marion Stan-


dish, 415/863-3520.


SANTA CLARA CHAPTER MEETING:


(Usually first Tuesday) Tuesday, January 5;


Tuesday, February 1. Contact Christine Ber-


aldo, 408/554-9478.


SANTA CRUZ. CHAPTER MEETING:


(Usually third Wednesday) Wednesday, Janu-


ary 20..Contact Bob Taren, 408/429-9880.


SONOMA CHAPTER MEETING:


(Usually third Thursday) Thursday, January


21. Roseland Law Center, 1680 Sebastopol


Road, Santa Rosa. Contact Colleen O'Neal,


707 | 575-1156.


STOCKTON CHAPTER MEETING:


(Usually third Wednesday) Contact. Beverly


Ford, 209/948-6759.


YOLO COUNTY CHAPTER MEETING:


(Usually Third Wednesday) Wednesday, Jan-


uary 20. Contact Vince Chen ae, 916/


756-2408 (eve).


Field Committee


Meetings


PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: (Usually -


first Wednesday) Wednesday, January 6;


Wednesday, February 3. 6:30 p.m.,


ACLU-NC office, 1663 Mission Street, San


Francisco. Now organizing activities to com-


memorate the ISth anniversary of Roe v.


Wade |/22/88. Contact Marcia Gallo, 415/


621-2493.


RIGHT TO KNOW/RIGHT TO DIS-


SENT COMMITTEE: Saturday, January


16, 10 a.m.-I p.m. Special organizing meeting


on covert operations. Contact Marcia Gallo,


415/621-2493.


IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:


(Usually fourth Thursday) Thursday, January


28, 7 p.m., ACLU-NC office, 1663 Mission


Street, San Francisco. Contact. Marcia Gallo,


415/621-2493.


INS Raid


continued from p. |


ating outside the parameters of the Constitu-


tion, and that its consistent preference for


heavy-handed, dragnet-style enforcement


techniques will not be tolerated."


ACLU-NC staff attorney Alan Schlosser


said, "This ruling sends a messae to the INS


that they cannot continue to conduct work-


place raids in a lawless and unconstitutional


manner. This message is particularly timely


as the INS is gearing up to enforce the new


immigration law in workplaces across the


country."


Operation Jobs


The November ruling resolves only part


of the lawsuit, which was filed in response to


the INS raids which occurred during Oper-


ation Jobs in April 1982 at 20 different work


sites in the Bay Area. Operation Jobs was a


series of highly publicized INS raids con-


ducted nationwide. :


The class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of


seven employers and all Hispanic employees


in northern California, also concerns com-


plaints on behalf of hundreds of Hispanic.


workers who were detained, interrogated,


arrested and abused by INS officers during


workplace raids.


"The rights of workers were clearly vio-


lated," attorney David Grabill of CRLA


stated. The suit charges that during certain


raids, INS agents intimidated, physically


abused and subjected workers to racial slurs


and other forms of name-calling before they


were arrested.


"It was like a wild animal hunt," said one


eye-witness.


A trial to resolve the remaining issues in


the lawsuit is scheduled for May 1988 and


may last as long as ten weeks. The trial will


deal with charges that the INS:


-has a "pattern and practice" of singling


out Hispanics in raids;


-coerces employers to cooperate in raids


when the agency does not have a warrant for


sweeps; and


--harasses employers and workers alike,


despite their cooperation, after entering the


workplace. (c)


_ Women


Committee to Defend Reproductive


Rights v. Kizer


(California Supreme Court)


~ Within hours of the ACLU-NC filing a lawsuit to


halt the state Legislature's Budget Act cuts in


Medi-Cal funding for abortion, the state Court of


Appeal blocked the. restrictions on the funds and


ordered state officials to continue to provide fund- .


ing for Medi-Cal abortions.


The ACLU-NC, for the tenth consecutive year,


represented a coalition of civil rights groups, wom-


en's organizations, health providers and taxpayers,


in challenging the Budget Act restrictions on the


funds. The ACLU has successfully challenged the


cuts since 1978 when the Legislature first restricted


Medi-Cal funding for abortion. If implemented, the


cuts would deny abortion funding for 80,000 indi-


gent women-one-quarter of them teenagers-


each year.


In an unusual move, the state requested the


California Supreme Court to take the case over


before the final decision was issued by the lower


court. However, on July 30, the Supreme Court


refused to take the case, pending the appellate


court ruling. -


Fluty v. Swoap


(Placer County Superior Court)


A taxpayer's suit filed by the American Life


Legal Foundation to halt Medi-Cal funding of abor--


tion services until the state establishes procedures


for special scrutiny of post-13 week abortion 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


has been used by national anti-choice forces as a


major fundraising appeal and may signal a wider


use of such lawsuits to undermine Medi-Cal fund-


ing for abortion.


Deer v. Alameda County Board of


Supervisors :


(California Court of Appeal)


A woman whose baby was stillborn due to


grossly negligent care at Highland Hospital


brought suit against the hospital, various adminis-


trative and medical personnel, and Alameda


_ County for medical malpractice, federal civil rights


violations, and violation of California civil and con-


stitutional rights.


- The ACLU filed an amicus brief supporting the


woman's petition for a writ of mandate addressing


the constitutional claims. The ACLU's brief, claim-


ing a violation of the California Constitution's pri-


vacy right guaranteeing reproductive choice,


argued that the woman's right to choose was


impaired by government misconduct, namely pro-


viding inadequate medical care at the county hos-


pital. The case was settled in December 1986.


Vinson v. Superior Court


(California Supreme Court)


According to a California Supreme Court


decision in August, an employer sued for sexual


harassment cannot subject the plaintiff to a psycho-


logical examination without any limitations as to


scope and without any procedural protections.


The lawsuit, in which the ACLU submitted an


amicus brief, grew out of a 1979 incident when a


CETA worker applied to the Peralta Community


College District for a job transfer. During her inter-


view, she was asked by the CETA director to submit


to his sexual demands in order to obtain the job.


She refused and was denied employment. After


she brought a sexual harassment suit, the District


attempted to require her to undergo a psychologi-


cal examination designed to delve into her sexual


history and attitudes. Although the lower court


denied her request for a protective order, the


Supreme Court agreed with ACLU arguments that


the examination violated her constitutional protec-


tion of privacy.


Sokolow v. Mounted Patrol


(San Mateo County Superior Court)


In 1986, the San Mateo Superior Court ruled


that the all-male Mounted Patrol in Woodside can-


not 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 attempting


to become a member of the all-male Patrol for


almost a decade. The ACLU is now appealing the


court' denial of attorneys fees.


-~Miunorities


KK


ANU


U.S. v. San Francisco


U.S. District Court)


-_-


In August, the ACLU-NC joined the legal team


representing women and minority fire fighters in a


suit challenging discrimination by the San Fran-


cisco Fire Department. Upon hearing that the Fire


Department was planning-for the first time-to


give across-the-board drug tests to the new candi-


dates. admitted to the Fire College under court


Annual Report of the ACLU


Foundation of Northern California


This year, as we celebrate the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution, we can be proud


of some resounding victories in this Legal Docket, victories which bring us closer to


fulfilling the promise of our constitutional rights.


In a victory for the separation of church and state, the California Court of Appeal ruled


that the inclusion of a prayer in a public high school graduation ceremony is unconstitu-


tional-this ruling will affect school districts throughout the state. In a victory for freedom


of the press, the California Supreme Court overturned a multi-million dollar libel judgment


against two reporters who had criticized law enforcement officials. In a victory for minority


language voters, a federal court ruled that a U.S. Attorney's investigation of voters seeking


bilingual ballots was discriminatory and unconstitutional.


But perhaps one of our greatest victories-the blocking of the confirmation of an


enemy of civil liberties to the nation's highest court-shows us just how fragile even our


greatest victories can be. For this nominee who was thwarted is not the only one on the


bench who opposes the right to privacy, reproductive freedom, and strong measures to


undo centuries of race discrimination. - |


In fact, President Reagan has appointed over 50% of the judges in the federal


judiciary-more than any other president in U.S. history.


Given the nature of the courts, our litigation-from drug testing to Medi-Cal funding


for abortion-has become more complex, more extensive and more costly. We have


expanded our legal staff by adding Matthew Coles, an experienced civil liberties attorney,


to our Legal Department. He joins our excellent team of attorneys, Edward Chen,


Margaret Crosby, and Alan Schlosser, in directing our remarkable legal program. With


pride we share this legal! docket with over 80 dedicated lawyers who donate their services


as ACLU cooperating attorneys.


Moreover, for every case on this docket, the ACLU's complaint desk, staffed by a


dozen volunteers, receives more than 200 calls each week. Assisted by the Legal


Department and ten law students who clerk for the ACLU during the year, these lay


counselors often provide the advocacy needed to resolve a particular grievance.


In addition, the ACLU's Public Information Department, directed by Elaine Elinson


with assistance from Shahnaz Taplin, alerts the public to action taken and issues


championed by ACLU litigation through the media and our own publications.


Through this docket, you can review the vital civil liberties issues which we have


fought for throughout this Bicentennial year-and that will continue to challenge us with


even greater intensity in the years ahead. We hope you will take this opportunity to join a


growing number of ACLU supporters who enable us to fulfill the promise of the U.S.


Constitution, a promise which belongs-but is still not granted-to all of us.


Nancy Pemberton


Chairperson


Dorothy Ehrlich


Executive Director


DEB


aE aia


RS


HHH


order, the legal team sought an injunction against


the tests. The District Court judge granted a TRO,


temporarily halting the drug tests, but subsequently


denied a preliminary injunction and allowed the


drug testing to proceed.


International Molders v. Nelson


(U.S. District Court)


In 1983, the ACLU-NC, MALDEF, CRLA, the


Asian Law Caucus and the National Lawyers Guild


filed a class action lawsuit challenging a nation-


wide sweep by the Immigration and Naturalization


. Service (INS) called Operation Jobs and subse-


quent INS raids. The U.S. Court of Appeals, recon-


sidering its earlier ruling that restrictions on


government immigration raids on worksites must


. be lifted, determined in December 1986 that the


preliminary injunction prohibiting the raids should


remain in place prior to the trial.


The landmark injunction, which was issued by


the U.S. District Court 1985, forbids INS agents


from entering worksites without a valid warrant or


consent, and from unlawfully questioning and


detaining workers without reasonable suspicion


that the person is unlawfully in the country. ~


The case is now proceeding to trial in U.S.


District Court. =


Olagues v. Russionello


(U.S. Supreme Court)


The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that


the U.S. Attorney's investigation. of bilingual ballot


seekers in nine northern California counties in


1982 impinged upon the voters constitutional


rights, and that the ACLU's challenge to the probe


must proceed to trial. The Court of Appeals deter-


mined that language minority voters are a "suspect


class' entitled to special protection under the equal


protection clause and the First Amendment.


The class action suit was filed by the


ACLU-NC, MALDEF, and California Rural Legal


Assistance on behalf of bilingual ballot seekers and


2 ACLU LEGAL DOCKET 1987


several organizations dedicated to assisting


Spanish- and Chinese-speaking voters to partici-


pate in the political process.


In October, the U.S. Supreme Court, after vot-


ing to hear the case, vacated the Ninth Circuit's


decision on grounds of mootness.


Associated General Contractors of


California v. San Francisco


(U.S. Court of Appeals)


The ACLU filed an amicus brief in April urging


the U.S. Court of Appeals to renear en banc a


decision of a three-judge panel invalidating San


Francisco's public contracts set aside program for


minority business enterprises.


The panel had held the minority affirmative


action program unconstitutional under a "strict |


~ scrutiny' analysis. The ACLU brief argues that the


court-erred in applying a stricter scrutiny standard


to race than to sex-based affirmative action.


0x00A7 Youth/


i


in


People v. Stockton Pregnancy Control


Medical Clinic |


(California Court of Appeal)


The ACLU filed an amicus brief in 1986 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.


The case was heard in appellate court in June.


Wexner v. Anderson Unified High School


District


(Cale 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.


S aE ee


ay


Ze :


Ky


I


Transportation Company


(California Court of Appeal)


The ACLU is representing a gay employee of


Southern Pacific who was denied the three-day


funeral leave provided for in his union contract


when his lover of 11 years died. The ACLU-NC


argued in August before the state Court of Appeal


that California law (Fair Housing and Employment


Act) prohibits the denial of employment benefits -


based on marital status.


After a two-day trial in 1985, the Superior Court


upheld SP's denial but noted that the state law


barring same-sex marriages discriminates against


gay people.


Johnson v. Orr


(U.S. Court of Appeals)


The ACLU and the Lesbian Rights Project filed


a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of an officer in


the California Air National Guard (ANG) who was


involuntarily discharged simply because she wrote


a letter to her commanding officer stating that she


was a Lesbian. The discharged officer, who


received excellent performance ratings since 1981


as a lieutenant in the ANG, was discharged solely


because she asserted she was a Lesbian and not


because of any finding that she had engaged in


homosexual activity or illegal conduct of any kind.


_ The lawsuit charges that the Air Force violated'


the former lieutenant's constitutional rights of free-


dom 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 prelimi-


~nary injunction and the decision was upheld by the


Court of Appeals.


Voters


Safadi v. Parkmerced


(San Francisco Superior Court)


Just weeks before the San Francisco mayoral


election, tenants at one of the largest apartment


complexes in the.city won the right to put campaign


signs in the windows of their homes after the ACLU


filed a class action lawsuit in San Francisco Super-


ior Court in October charging that the landlord's


prohibition on posting signs was illegal and


unconstitutional.


A Parkmerced Residential Community lease


provision, which states that tenants can be evicted


for posting signs in their windows, |s in violation of


a state law which makes it unlawful to evict a tenant


`exercising any rights under the law, the ACLU


charged. The judge issued a TRO to allow the signs


to be posted prior to the November election and set


a hearing on the preliminary injunction for


December.


- Washburn v. City of Berkeley


(California Court of Appeal)


In October, the state Court of Appeal stated, in


aruling which may have a chilling effect on political


expression, that an individual who signs a ballot


initiative argument that is ruled to be false or mis-


leading can be required to pay the legal costs of the


person who challenges the argument.


The ACLU represented Berkeley's elected city


auditor who was ordered by a superior court judge


to pay her opponent's legal fees for allegedly mak-


ing incorrect statements on a ballot measure about


recycling in November 1984.


The ACLU argued that an award of attorneys


fees, with no finding that the signatory was negli-


gent, much less wilfully false, can 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. The ACLU will appeal the


ruling to the California Supreme Court.


Common Cause of California v. Los


Angeies County


(California Court of Appeal)


Aruling from the Los Angeles Superior Court,


and upheld by the Court of Appeal, could bring


about the registration of hundreds of thousands of


eligible low-income and minority voiers. In 1986,


the ACEU-NC joined the Southern California affil-


iate in filing the lawsuit requiring local government


officials to institute affirmative voter registration pro-


grams 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. The Superior


Court and then the Court of Appeal issued a preli-


minary injunction requiring the County to take


steps to register underregistered voters. In July, the


County filed a petition for hearing in the Seca


Supreme Court.


Monterey County Democratic Central


Committee v. U.S. Postal Service


(U.S. Court of Appeals)


According to a March ruling in federal court,


the walkway outside a post office is not.a ``tradi-


tional public forum," and therefore voter registration


by partisan groups may be prohibited there. The


court denied an ACLU challenge to the U.S. Postal


' Service guideline, first issued in December 1983,


barring voter registration by partisan groups on


post office property.


When the postmaster at the Carmel Valley


Post Office refused in 1984 to allow the local Demo-


cratic Committee fo 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 U.S. District Court issued an


immediate injunction allowing registration in time


for the November 1984 elections, the Court then - -


reversed itself and ruled that the guideline was


valid. The Ninth Circuit Court of eppedls upheld the


decision.


Demonstrators


ANN


AN


The Bay Area Peace Navy-an organization


that uses sailboats, canoes, kayaks, and other


small boats to carry a message against milita-


rism-was allowed to sail within sight and hearing


of spectators on Aquatic Pier during the U.S. Navy's


October Fleet Week procession after the U.S. Dis-


trict Court issued an order striking down the Navy's


"security zone" restrictions on the peace activists.


The ACLU challenged the Navy's ban-which


would have kept the Peace Navy 75 to 100 yards


away from the Pier-as a violation of the protestors


First Amendment rights. A hearing for a preliminary


injunction for future aquatic demonstrations has


been set for November.


California: Stevedore and Ballast


Company v. Bay Area Free South Africa


Movement


(San Francisco Superior Court)


In 1986, the ACLU prepared an overnight ami-


cus brief which succeeded in preventing a ship-


ping company from stopping anti-apartheid


protests against the unloading of South African


goods at San Francisco': 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 demon-


strations 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.


AANKNK,


Northern California Newspaper


Organizing Committee v. Solano Mall


(California Court of Appeal)


Union members involved in a labor dispute


are allowed to leaflet at a shopping center with the


same degree of protection as any other leafleters


according to a state Court of Appeal ruling in


August. .


Agreeing with ACLU arguments, the Superior


Court ruled in 1985 that information about labor


disputes is entitled to the same free speech protec-


tions as any other issue and noted that the access


issue had already been resolved in the 1979 land-


mark 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.


In affirming the lower court ruling, the Court of


Appeal declared that the union: members right to


distribute leaflets at the mall was protected by the


California Constitution. The union members will


now seek a permanent injunction against the mall.


re


the e Disabled


a KK


ia


White v. Department of Developmental


Services


(California Court of Appeal)


_ The ACLU-NC in May appealed a 1986 super-


ior court decision that developmentally disabled


children may not receive state-funded treatment


unless records of their intimate behavior are placed


in a centralized state computer.


The case was filed in Sacramento Superior -


Court in 1985 on behalf of two developmentally


disabled children and their parents who receive


services funded by the Department of Develop- 0x00B0


mental Services. The ACLU lawsuit contends that


the collection and storage of the children's per-


sonal records, identifiable by name, violates their


constitutional and statutory rights to privacy.


the Press


McCoy et al. v. Hearst Corporation et al.


(California Supreme Court)


When the United States Supreme Court in


May let stand the California Supreme Court ruling


that threw out a multi-million dollar libel judgement


against two reporters and the San Francisco Exa-


miner, the final period was put on an 11 year battle


for press freedom.


By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme


Court upheld the California high court's 1986


unanimous decision reversing a $1.5 million libel


judgment against former San Francisco Examiner


reporter Raul Ramirez and freelance writer Lowell


- Bergman and a $3 million judgment against the


Examiner and the Hearst Corporation. The repor-


ters were represented by the ACLU-NC.


The original libel suit judgment, awarded by a


San Francisco jury in 1979, was the result of a suit


brought by two city policemen and a former Assist-


ant 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 i activi-


ties of public officials. :


Prisoners


ANN


Rios et al. v. McCarthy


(Sacramento Superior Court)


Pregnant women and 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 Com-


munity 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 Depart-


ment of Corrections was wrongfully separating


mothers from their infants. The Temporary Restrain-


ing Order allowed certain named plaintiffs to be


placed in the program with their children, and


discovery is proceeding for the larger class of |


plaintiffs.


Diaz v. Watts


(California Court of Appeal)


After years of litigation on behalf of prison


newspaper editors, the State Court of Appeal


upheld the Department of Corrections (CDC)


guidelines limiting press freedom inside prison


walls. The January decision came in the case that


the ACLU had filed on behalf of the inmate editor of


the prison newspaper at the California Medical


Facility in Vacaville.


In 1981 a Superior Court injunction ordered


prison officials at CMF who had censored, des-


troyed 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 argued on appeal that


the regulations were unconstitutionally vague and


overbroad.


Underwood v. Compoy


(U.S, District Court)


A black prisoner at Folsom who was given ten


days solitary confinement for writing an angry letter


to the former Director of the Department of Correc-


tions indicating that she was.a disgrace to her race


was vindicated in June when the U.S. District Court


determined that the inmate should not have been


punished for eocang his First Amendment


rights.


The ACLU-NC ee the prisoner who


was sentenced to solitary confinement, denied


participation in the work program, and restricted


from most other prison activities as a result of the -


letter.


The court ruled that the inmate's right to free


speech was improperly restricted, granted him


monetary relief, and ordered the expungement


from his record of all files relating to the letter and


the disciplinary action. However, because of two


recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the court is


reconsidering its ruling.


Toussaint v. McCarthy


_ (U.S. Court of Appeals)


This case was a major (and successful) chal-


lenge 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 stu-


dents should be computed at market rates rather


than at actual costs.


The appeal was dismissed after the District


Court reconsidered, and oes plaintiffs motion -


for market rates.


(R)


Death Row


-


iF


Vickers v. Ricketts


(U.S. Supreme Court)


The ACLU helped win another victory against


capital punishment when the U.S. Supreme Court


in January denied a petition for certiorari in the case


of Robert Wayne Vickers.


Ina triai-where the defendant was defended


by incompetent counsel and was not given the


opportunity to present evidence of emotional insta-


bility -for the murder of his cellmate in the Arizona


State Prison, Vickers was convicted of murder and .


sentenced to death. The ACLU filed a petition of


habeas corpus in 1985 after the sentence was


upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court.


The U.S. Supreme Court's action means that


the reversal of Vickers' death penalty conviction by


the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1986 will stand,


and that his case now returns to the Arizona courts


for retrial. 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.


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 art-


work is particularly oppressive since many of these


inmates depend on art work for the primary source


of income.


In June 1986, the Superior Court denied the


~ prison officials motion to dismiss the case and


discovery is pending.


In re Neely


(California Court of Appeal)


The ACLU and the Prison Law Office filed a


habeas corpus petition in December 1985 chal-


lenging San Quentin's blanket denial of family


visiting privileges to Death Row inmates. When the -


Marin County Superior Court denied the petition,


the ACLU appealed. The appellate court denied


the appeal in June.


And for the


ok tO.


7


Z o


EE


Expression


NNN


Women's International League for Peace


and Freedom v. 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 pro-


hibiting political messages on public property.


The Superior Court held that the city ordi-


nance 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 Appeals reversed the


trial court and upheld the constitutionality of the


ordinance without addressing the legality of the


signs.


In May, the California Supreme Court let stand


the appellate court decision.


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. Permis-


sion to set up the table was revoked by the post-


master 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 1986 challenging the unprece-


dented 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 discriminat-


ing on the basis of the political viewpoints of guest


lecturers. It also seeks damages for violations of


plaintiffs First Amendment and statutory rights.


Allende v. Shultz (and other visa cases)


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


_ In March, more than four years after her


speaking tour to California was scuttled by the U.S.


State Department denial of a visa, a federal court in


Massachusetts determined that Hortensia Allende,


widow of slain Chilean President Salvador Allende,


was improperly denied entry into the United States


by the government. The ACLU-NC and the national


ACLU filed a federal lawsuit challenging the Rea-


gan Administration's visa denial. The former Chi-


lean First Lady had been to the U.S. under every


administration since 1973 except the Reagan


Administration.


The summary judgment was granted by the


court to a group of plaintiffs including religious


leaders and scholars who had issued an invitation


to Mrs. Allende. The ACLU argued that the denial


abridged the freedom of speech and assembly


guaranteed in the First Amendment. The Court of


Appeals heard the government's appeal in


September.


In October, in a similar ACLU visa denial case


on behalf of Nicaraguan Interior Minister Tomas


Borge and two representatives of the Cuba Wom-


en's Federation, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a


lower court ruling that the visa denials of these'


persons were improper. As it was a 3-3 ruling


(because of the vacancy on the Supreme Court


and the withdrawal of two Justices), this victory only


holds for the Washington, D.C. Circuit.


In re Price


(Immigration and Naturalization Service)


The ACLU is representing a permanent resi-


dent alien who seeks U.S. citizenship but refuses to


answer the question on the standard naturalization


form requiring him to list all organizations with


which he was ever affiliated. The federal Court of


Appeals ruled in a prior ACLU case (/n re Duncan)


that it would not reach the constitutionality of the


membership question because the party seeking


citizenship had not followed proper procedures.


This is.a follow-up to the earlier lawsuit and will seek


to have the courts rule the membership question


unconstitutional under the First Amendment.


ACLU v. Murphy


- (California Court of Appeal)


_ Ina case designed to determine whether the


San Francisco Police Department was conducting


political surveillance or intelligence gathering of


the Ku Klux Klan and whether this is in accordance


with department guidelines, the state Court of


Appeal ruled in February that the Department must


turn over to the ACLU a videotape .related to the


police refusal to allow a Klan demonstration during


the 1984 Democratic Convention.


The ACLU filed suit under the California Public


`Records Act seeking information pertaining to an -


incident in which members of the Klan were


escorted by the police 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.


Besides the videotape, the appellate court


determined that the police must also turn over an


index of the other contested records. The superior


court will decide whether the other records must be


disclosed.


EMI Santa Rosa Limited Partnership v.


Sonoma County Nuclear Weapons


Freeze Campaign/Sonoma County


Nuclear Weapons 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 sub-


sequently 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


ACLU LEGAL DOCKET 1987. 3


access on weekends and holidays and no solicita-


tion 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 prelimi-


nary injunction against the mall which allowed the


groups to carry out their free speech activities at the


shopping center, and prevented the mall from


requiring any groups from complying with the


mall's burdensome rules, 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.


ANN


Privacy


LeVant v. NCAA/Hill and McKeever v. NCAA


(Santa Clara Superior Court)


In August, the Santa Clara Superior Court


issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting


the NCAA from requiring written consents to drug


testing from Stanford student athletes as a condi-


_ tion for participating in intercollegiate sports.


Champion student diver Simone LeVant won


the first successful challenge to the NCAA drug


testing program in March when the same court


issued an injunction allowing LeVant to compete in


college diving championships without consenting


to the mandatory drug test. The court ruled that the


NCAA could not force the Stanford student to waive


her constitutional right to privacy.


Although LeVant graduated in June, two other


Stanford athletes, a football player and the captain


of the women's soccer team, as well as the Univer-


sity Itself, have joined the case as plaintiffs so that


the ACLU challenge to the NCAA rule will continue


in Superior Court.


Price v. Pacific Refining Company


(Contra Costa Superior Court)


In July, the ACLU-NC thwarted an.attempt by a


Hercules oil refinery to reinstate company-wide


testing when the state Court of Appeal denied the


company's request for an appellate review of the


case as well as the company's petition to overturn


the preliminary injunction against drug testing. In


an October 1986 challenge to the mandatory


company-wide drug testing policy asa violation of


the workers privacy rights guaranteed by the Calli-


fornia Constitution, the ACLU-NC and the Employ-


ment Law Center won an injunction from the Contra


Costa Superior Court.


In April, the Superior Court accepted a modi-


fied version of the plan proposed by the company-


which allows that employees who work near poten-


~ tially dangerous equipment or materials be subject


to drug tests if there is a reasonable suspicion by a


supervisor of drug use and the worker fails a fitness


for duty examination administerd by a licensed


health professional. Also, employees may be given


a fitness for duty exam without suspicion upon 24 "


hours prior notice. Workers involved in accidents


may also be subject to drug testing. The new plan


allows employees who are required to provide a


urine sample be provided with a portion for their


own testing, an important procedural safeguard. It


also requires all observations supporting a deci-


sion to drug test to be documented in writing.


Random, blanket testing is still barred. :


The case has now been returned to Superior


Court.


Railway Labor Executives Association v.


Dole |


(U.S. Court of Appeals)


In 1986, 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 vio-


4 ACLU LEGAL DOCKET 1987


late 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 individual-


ized suspicion.


Citizens for a Better Environment v. Ae


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 can-


vassers privacy and their First Amendment right to


communicate with the people of Vallejo.


The city has now amended its solicitation


ordinance to eliminate the fingerprint requirement.


ANN


Due Process


Kirk v. City of San Francisco


(Us: District Court)


The ACLU is representing a man whose law-


suit was. dismissed by a district Court judge for


failing to state a claim under the federal Constitu-


tion. 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 lawsuit,


the complaint has been reinstated upon consider-


ation and a decision !s pending.


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 1986 challenging a vagrancy law


which violates the California Constitution's guaran-


tee 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. The case |s awaiting argu-


ment in the Supreme Court.


People v. Spain


(U.S. District Court)


Johnny Larry Spain, a former Black Panther


Party member who was convicted for murder dur-


ing. 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 ebro about the


Black Panther Party.


The state has appealed the ruling, and Spain


remains in prison.


Freedom from


cm


Unreasonable


Search


Ingersoll v. Palmer


(California Supreme Court)


In October the California Supreme Court


upheld the 1985 decision by the state Court of


Appeal which determined that drunk driving


roadblocks, conducted by police according to cer-


tain guidelines, are permissible under the United


States and California Constitutions. An ACLU tax-


payers suit had challenged the roadblocks when


the program first went into effect in 1984.


Charging that the roadblocks are in violation of


the Fourth Amendment, the California Constitution


and California law, the ACLU filed suit in November -


1984, just days before the California Highway Patrol


and several'police departments set up drunk driv-


ing roadblocks in a number of California commun-


ities. The roadblocks were begun following an


opinion issued by the state Attorney General stat-


ing that they were legal.


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 vis-


itors and their vehicles are searched by armed


guards and police dogs, even though they subse-


quently have to go through a standard metal detec-


tor search before entering the prison itself.


The Superior Court-ruled in a preliminary


injunction 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-pre-


viously, they had been detained against their will.


The case is proceeding to trial.


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 1986 granting


monetary damages to the strip search victim; how-


ever, a separate aspect of the lawsuit-challenging


the strip search policy of the Police Department-


is still pending.


7 frecdom from


ANAK


'


Police


Abuse


Stevens v. Hance


(San Francisco Superior Court)


In May, a Rastafarian priest who was falsely


arrested and beaten by a San Francisco police


officer was awarded in settlement $35,000 in dam-


ages. as a result of an ACLU lawsuit. A second


Rastafarian who died of cancer during the course


of the lawsuit received $3,000 for his surviving


daughter.


The ACLU filed a personal injury and civil


rights lawsuit in 1985 on behalf of the two Rastafar-


ians who were arrested and strip searched by three


San Francisco plainclothes narcotics officers. The


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 suit


alleged that the men were falsely arrested, beaten


and strip searched because of their race and


religion.


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 argued 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. In December,


the high court decided the case, generally uphold-


ing the power to arrest inebriates.


'*F reedom ot


ANNAN


y


Bennet v. Livermore Unified School


District


(California Supreme Court)


In a precedent setting decision, the California


Court of Appeal ruled in July that the inclusion of a


prayer in a public high school graduation cerem-


ony |S unconstitutional. In October, the California


Supreme Court refused to hear the school! district's


appeal, leaving in place the appellate court ruling.


The case originated in 1983, when graduating


seniors at Granada High School in Livermore


objected to having a prayer at their graduation


exercises. The students were opposed by several


school committees, the principal and the school


board. The ACLU-NC represented one of the


seniors in court arguing that the inclusion of the


prayer was. in violation of the constitutional princi-


ples of church-state separation.


The injunction issued by the Superior Court


was allowed to stand by the Court of Appeal and


the Supreme Court on the eve of the graduation


ceremony, and the prayer was excluded from the


program.


__ This is the first ruling from an appellate court


which will have an effect statewide on the many.


other school districts which include religious invo-


cations in their graduation exercises.


Lyng v. North Indian Cemetery


Protective Association


(U.S. Supreme Court)


The ACLU-NC has joined the national ACLU


and several ACLU affiliates in representing the


Yurok, Karok and Talowa tribes in their lawsuit to


protect their religious ground, known as the "high


country' in Humboldt. County from being


degraded by a proposed new federal government


. timber road.


After atrial, the U.S. District Court ruled that the


government proposal violated the tribes First .


Amendment rights because it would seriously


impair the Indian use of the high country for reli-


gious practices. The soeine | appealed the


decision.


The ACLU is arguing that the Indians' right .


free exercise of religion would be violated by the


proposed road because an indispensable element


of their religious practice would be taken from them


by the government for no compelling reason.


Rippberger and Middleton Vv. 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 in 1986 on behalf of


parents whose children died after receiving care


from certified Christian Science healers. The par-


ents were charged with felony child endangerment


and involuntary manslaughter for relying on heal-


ing 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, which appeals a lower court rul-


ing that parents providing spiritual healing for their


children are liable if treatment is unsuccessful, is


awaiting argument in the Supreme Court.


The 1987 Legal Docket


was produced by ACLU News


editor Elaine Elinson with


assistance from Mike Nagler.


You Can Support the


ACLU Docket


vata your special tax-deductible poret on to the


ACLU Foundation of Northern California. Without special


gifts from our Supporters, the docket you are holding might


be only one-half the size.


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


tax-deductible contribution of |


OX $1000 LO $500 [1 $250 C1 $100 i$ (other)


Name-


Address


City State Zip


Phone


Please. make checks or money orders payable to the ACLU Foundation of Northern


California and send to ACLU Foundation, 1663 Mission St., San Francisco, CA 94103.


Page: of 8
Clip Image

In collections

Details
Title

vol. 52, no. 8 (December, 1987)

Creator

American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Date

1987 December

Identifier

ACLUN_0554

Genre

newspapers

Physical description

40.5 x 28 cm

Publisher

San Francisco (Calif.): American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Preferred citation

ACLU of Northern California News vol. 52, no. 8, 1987 December; PER ACLUN; California Historical Society.

Rights statement

In Copyright

Publication rights

Copyright (or related rights to publicity and privacy) for materials in this collection, created by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, was not transferred to the California Historical Society (CHS). Permission for reproduction or publication of materials in this collection beyond that allowed by fair use must be secured from the copyright holder.

Topical subject(s)

Criminal justice
Searches and seizures
Privacy, Right of
Church and state
Voting rights
Freedom of information
Freedom of expression
Capital punishment
Black Panther Party
Academic freedom
Reproductive rights
LGBTQ rights
Police practices
Expungement

Named subject(s)

Allende, Hortensia
Bird, Rose
Brautigan, Richard
Chen, Edward
Coles, Matthew
Crew, John
Crosby, Margaret
Ehrlich, Dorothy
Gallo, Marcia
LeVant, Simone
Pemberton, Nancy
Ramey, Drucilla
Ramirez, Raul
Reagan, Ronald
Schlosser, Alan
Schwartz, Amitai
Swartz, Marjorie
Warner, Douglas
Warren, Earl
Asian Law Caucus
California Highway Patrol
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund
Hearst Corporation

Geographical subject(s)

Sacramento (Calif.)
Monterey (Calif.)
Santa Rosa (Calif.)
Monterey County (Calif.)
Vacaville (Calif.)
Bakersfield (Calif.)
Fresno (Calif.)
Oakland (Calif.)
Berkeley (Calif.)

Collection identifier

PER ACLUN