vol. 53 (1988), no. 6

NON PROFIT

ORGANIZATION

U.S. POSTAGE

PAID

Permit No, 4424

San Francisco, CA

Volume LI

November/December 1988 |

aclu news

No. 6

- Rosa Parks to be Honored

, n December 1, 1955 in Montgom-

QO ery, Alabama Rosa Parks, a Black

seamstress, refused a bus driver's

order to give up her seat and move to the

back of a city bus. Her courageous act

launched the historic Montgomery Bus

Boycott and the modern day Civil Rights

Movement.

On Sunday, December 11 civil rights pi-

oneer Rosa Parks will be honored with the

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award at the

ACLU-NC 16th annual Bill of Rights Day

Celebration. The event, which will be held

at the Sheraton Palace Hotel in San Fran-

cisco, is the culmination of the ACLU-

NC's annual fundraising campaigns.

The keynote speaker will be john pow-

ell, Legal Director of the national ACLU.

Each year, for the past fifteen years, the

Earl Warren Civil Liberties Award has

`been presented to a person or persons who

have distinguished themselves as champi-

ons in the battle to preserve and extend civ-

il liberties.

ACLU-NC Board Chair Lee Halterman

explained, "We chose Rosa Parks because |

of her tremendous personal bravery and be-

cause of her standing up for her rights and

the rights of all people who were oppressed

by a vicious system of racial segregation.

"Tt also seemed fitting to us that in an

era where there had been such overt and

covert appeals to renewed racism that the -

ACLU should make a visible commitment

to the perfection of a civil rights struggle

Rosa Parks

Rights Movement.

at Rights

- her arrest sparked the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boyco

tt and the Civil

Rosa and Raymond `Parks I.

that started so many years ago," Halterman

added.

Early Activist

Though best known for igniting the

fight against segregation in the South,

" Rosa Parks and her husband Raymond had

been battling racial prejudice and Jim Crow

laws long before that historic day in 1955.

Raymond Parks was an early activist in the .

effort to free the "Scottsboro Boys," a cele-

brated ACLU case in the 1930's. Together

they worked in the NAACP, where she

served as secretary and later as youth leader

of the local branch. At the time of her ar-

rest, Parks was preparing for a major youth

conference.

At a trial four days after her arrest, Parks

was found guilty of disobeying the Mont-

gomery segregation ordinance and fined

$14. That same day, after a rally led by Dr.

Martin Luther King at the Holt Street Bap-

tist Church, the bus boycott began.

The whole Black community of Mont-

gomery, 40,000 strong, staged what one

observer called "the greatest strike in the

history of this country." For a year,

Blacks refused to ride the city bus syste:

until it was integrated.

Racial Violence

The city retaliated by sending one hun-

Continued on p. 4

Challenge to 10-Minute Voting Limit

one of the longest ballots in Califor-

nia history, U.S. District Court

Judge Robert P. Aguilar declared the state's

10-minute voting rule discriminatory and

issued an order preventing election officials

in all 58 counties from enforcing it.

However, two days later, in response to

an appeal by the state, a federal appeals

court overturned Aguilar's order, stating

there was no evidence that elections offi-

cials would rigidly enforce the regulation.

The ACLU-NC joined other public inter-

est attorneys in a class action lawsuit chal-

lenging the 90-year old law on behalf of

two residents of Santa Clara County, one

of the counties which said it would enforce

the regulation.

The suit was filed by the ACLU-NC, the

Mexican American Legal Defense and Edu-

cation Fund, the Asian Law Alliance, and

Joaquin Avila on behalf of language mi-

norities who are of Latino and Asian ori-

gin.

In issuing his order, Aguilar noted that

"a fundamental constitutional right is be-

ing denied by virtue of the discriminatory

effect the time limit will have on the voter

F= days before an election featuring

in this election."

He said that the time limit effectively

constituted "a prohibited literary test for

voters," and added, "Language minorities

would be overburdened with the require-

ments that they cast their ballot within ten

minutes of entering the voting booth."

The lawsuit challenges a section of the

California Elections Code which states,

"Voters shall not remain in or occupy

booths or compartments longer than is ne-

cessary to work their ballot, which shall

not exceed ten minutes..."

According to attorney Manuel Romero

of MALDEF, "The ten minute limit has a

discriminatory effect on the voting rights

of language minorities with limited or no

proficiency in the English language.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen added,

"This arbitrary time limit is a violation of

the federal Voting Rights Act in that it

serves as a discriminatory device which

abridges the voting rights of a class of citi-

zens.

"There are many citizens, particularly

those not proficient in English, the elderly,

and those with reading disabilities, who

cannot complete the mechanical task of

. marking SO to 75 selections on the ballot

within ten minutes, even if they have made

up their minds on the issues and candi-

dates," he added.

The suit was filed against the state of

California, Santa Clara County, where

both of the plaintiffs reside, and the class

of other counties which are enforcing the

challenged provision. Santa Clara County

recently discontinued the use of bilingual

ballots, which means that language minor-

ity voters must cope with an English-only

ballot during their allotted time in the vot-

ing booth.

Monitor polls

After the November 7 appellate court

ruling, which followed arguments made

over a long-distance conference call, mem-

bers of the ACLU-NC Santa Clara Chapter

and other volunteers monitored the polls in

Santa Clara County. Attorney Chen ac-

companied plaintiff Chun-Siang Niu to his

polling place. Niu, who was voting for the

first time as a U.S. citizen, said through an

interpreter, "I won't leave the voting booth

until I've finished voting."

Niu, a registered Republican, said he was

going to vote for George Bush. Attorney

Chen said that although Niu spent longer

than ten minutes in the voting booth, no

one attempted to make him leave.

Alternative methods

Prior to the lawsuit, many counties, in-

cluding San Francisco and Santa Cruz, said

that they would not enforce the regulation.

Instead, they used other methods - such

as express lines - to ensure that all voters

would have a chance to cast their lengthy

ballots.

"There are alternative ways of dealing

with the long ballot which the state can

use which do not violate voters' rights,"

Avila noted.

"The right to vote is one of the most

precious rights we have. People have

fought long and hard to remove obstacles

- such as the poll tax, literacy require-

ments, and race barriers - so that all citi-

zens will be able to participate.

"We cannot allow this basic right to be

diminished by enforcing an arbitrary time

limit at the polls," Avila added.

~ aclu news

2 nov./dec. 1988

ACLU Looks at Police Policies

`*Homeless-

ness is Not a

Crime''

t a press conference on a crowded

A corner of Market Street, just a few

feet away from police sweeps of

the homeless which led to an ACLU law-

suit three years ago, San Francisco Police

Chief Frank Jordan and representatives of

the Coalition on Homelessness announced

a "Resolution on the Rights of the Home-

less," which was unanimously passed by

the Police Commission on November 2.

"Tt's not a crime to be homeless," said

Chief Jordan, standing by the police koban

in front of the Powell Street cable car turn-

around. While street musicians played in

the background, the police chief said that

officers would not detain or check identifi-

cation of homeless persons on the street.

Instead, officers will "approach them and

tell them where. they can find aid," he add-

ed.

Referring to merchants who have called

on police to remove so-called undesirable

people from in front of their stores, Chief

Jordan said, "We're asking citizens to un-

derstand there's only so much police can do

about panhandling. When someone's only

disheveled in appearance, all we can do is

refer that person to a shelter or a halfway

house."

Cleo Meek, a member of the Homeless

Task Force, said, "It would benefit us all if

the police would spend their time and ener-

gy in. more serious crimes which would

help end the cycle of homelessness." It is

estimated that there are at least 6,000

homeless in San Francisco.

ACLU-NC attorney John Crew, an ar-

chitect of the resolution whose arrest while

monitoring police sweeps of the homeless.

at Hallidie Plaza sparked an ACLU lawsuit

challenging the former police policy, said,

"The Coalition on the Homeless views

this resolution as an important first step.

We will continue to monitor police com-

pliance with this policy to ensure that it is

enforced."

Homeless survey

Concern over police harassment of the

homeless grew out of increasing reports of

police misconduct. The Coalition on the

Homeless conducted a survey among 284

homeless people in recent weeks which

confirmed an alarming pattern of civil

rights violations by the police against the

homeless.

Among those polled, 96% reported inci-

dents of persons having been asked to

"move along" when they were doing noth-

ing wrong, 93% had witnessed or been

subjected to unwarranted identification

checks by the police, and 81% had wit-

nessed or experienced clothes or body

searches for no reason.

Police Commissioner Jose Medina said

that the resolution passed by the Commis-

sion states, "Members of the Police De-

partment are obligated to treat all persons

equally regardless of their economic or liv-

ing conditions. The homeless enjoy the

same legal and individual rights afforded to

others, =

"Homeless individuals shall also, upon

request, receive the same levels of prompt,

courteous police service provided to oth-

ers...in San~Francisco," "the resolution. .

States.

The Coalition on the Homeless is com- .

prised of over 70 representatives of home-

less advocacy groups, service providers, le-

gal groups such as the ACLU-NC, and

current and former members of the home-

less community. oe

Coalition spokesperson Greg Francis,

noted that an end to police abuse is only

one step in addressing the problems of the

homeless in the City. "By providing exits

out of the cycle of homelessness -

through safe and affordable housing, jobs,

and improvements in social services - the

Coalition seeks to affect public policy and

reverse expensive, crisis-oriented responses

by government and private agencies."

ACLU Wins Changes

in Inmate Fund

he ACLU-NC won a victory for

| Death Row inmates on October 19

when the Marin County Superior

Court ordered San Quentin prison officials

to administer the Inmate Welfare Fund

more fairly.

Inmates pay into the Fund through can-

teen profits and surcharges on sales of their

art work and handicrafts. The Fund pays for

recreation and other inmate benefits.

Although Death Row inmates were pay-

ing into the Fund just like other prisoners,

they had no access to its benefits such as

library resources, movies, and craft and

hobby shop facilities.

In its October order, following an agree-

ment reached with the Department of Cor-

rections, the court ordered the prison to re-

duce the surcharge on artwork that Death

Row inmates pay into the Fund from 25%

to 10%. The court also ordered the prison

to give lists of library books to all Death

Row inmates.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen and

co-counsel Donald Specter of the Prison

Law Office filed the class action lawsuit

three years ago on behalf of Death Row in-

mate John G. Davenport, 200 California

Death Row inmates, and a state taxpayer.

The defendants were San Quentin warden

Daniel B. Vasquez and state Department of

Corrections Director James Rowland.

The surcharge was particularly burden-

some on inmates who realize a large part

of their income from the sale of artwork,

Chen explained.

"The victory is small but significant,"

Chen said. "Requiring Death Row inmates

to pay a confiscatory charge on the sale of

art work, the main source of funds for

many Death Row inmates who are categor-

ically barred from holding prison jobs, is

unfair and unlawful," he added.

The court rejected the ACLU's broader

challenge to other aspects of the Inmate

Welfare Fund.

-Kent Miller

Crowd

Control

Controversy

ollowing more than a month of heat-

P= criticism of the San Francisco Po-

lice Department in the wake of the

near fatal beating by a police officer of

United Farm Workers vice-president Do-

lores Huerta, the ACLU-NC, the National

Lawyers Guild and Community United

Against Violence presented a detailed pro-

posal on improving crowd control practices

Police violence at demonstrations spurred civil rights groups to propose new

operations. The Order should include a pro-

vision that "no force may be used to dis-

perse an individual except under extenuat-

ing circumstances and then only after all

those affected have been given adequate no-

tice, adequate time to disperse, and a safe

and clear route by which to disperse."

Regarding the composition of the Tacti-

cal Squad, the proposal calls for a survey of

the background of all officers assigned to

the tactical unit to determine whether any

of them are unfit for service with the high

stress unit. Officers "who have displayed a

significant pattern of misconduct" should

be transferred to other units, the groups

propose.

Noting that the OCC is the official agen-

crowd control guidelines to the San Francisco Police Commission.

and polices to the San Francisco Police

Commission on November 9.

"Police crowd control tactics have been a

source of repeated controversy in San Fran-

cisco over the last several year," said

ACLU-NC Police Practices Project Director

John Crew. "Public concern has again been

heightened by the tragic injuries suffered by

Dolores Huerta during the protest against

Bush at the St. Francis Hotel on September

14."

In addition to calling for a long-term,

public review of the Department's current

crowd control policies, the proposal identi-

fies several areas which "demand immediate

attention from the Police Commission."

These include the following:

e preparation of a General Order empha-

sizing that the goal of police action is to fa-

cilitate free expression in the context of

public safety;

e a new policy on the selection of Tacti-

cal Squad officers; and

e a stronger oversight role for the Office

of Citizen Complaints.

A General Order is a basic regulation

promulgated by the Commission to govern

the Police Department. Currently, there is

no General Order covering crowd control

cy for the receipt and investigation of all

complaints of police misconduct, the pro-

posal states the Commission should require

the OCC to monitor police operations at

demonstrations in order to collect evidence

of possible misconduct.

The ACLU-NC filed a complaint with

the OCC against the Tactical Squad officer

who allegedly beat Huerta at the St. Francis

demonstration. After being brutally shoved

with a billy club, Huerta suffered a ruptured

spleen and two broken ribs.

From TV news videotapes and Crew's

eyewitness account of the demonstration,

the ACLU-NC complaint identified Officer

Frank Achim as the policeman who at-

tacked Huerta, a 58-year old grandmother

and a founder of the UFW.

Huerta's son also filed a complaint about

the incident with the OCC. On November

10, the OCC agreed with the ACLU that

Achim had used unnecessary force, and sus-

tained the complaints.

On November 14, a grand jury, which

was specifically convened by District Attor-

ney Arlo Smith to consider criminal indict-

ments in the Huerta incident, issued a report

Continued on p.4

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

H. Lee Halterman, Chairperson

Elaine Elinson, Editor

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 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news and

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

aclu news

nov./dec. 1988 3

Bush Blast Bolsters ACLU

by Martha Kegel

ACLU-NC Associate Director

ore than 2,000 northern Californi-

ans have joined the ACLU since

+ October in response to George

Bush's attacks on "card carrying members"

- and new memberships continue to pour

in.

During the Presidential Campaign, Bush

attacked opponent Michael Dukakis for be-

ing a "card carrying member of the

ACLU." Bush said he opposes most of

what the ACLU does.

The national ACLU reported receiving

thousands of new members - including

five gift memberships for George Herbert

Walker Bush.

ACLU-NC chapter hotlines as well as -

the San Francisco and Sacramento offices

were swamped with hundreds of calls from

people wanting to join the ACLU to show

their support. In one day at the Castro

Street Fair in San Francisco, the ACLU-

NC Gay Rights Chapter signed up 58 new

members.

Membership Director Sandy Holmes

called the surge of new members unprece-

dented. "Never before have so many peo-

ple joined the ACLU-NC in so short a.

time," she said. "We are truly grateful that

so many people are defying Mr. Bush's at-

tempt to brand the ACLU and our defense

of civil liberties as un-American."

Long-time members are also responding

with extra gifts to bolster the ACLU

Foundation's legal and public education

programs. :

"T want to thank our members for sup-

port that is especially needed as we brace

ourselves for the prospect of an even more

difficult climate in which to work," said

ACLU-NC Chair H. Lee Halterman. "We

need to make clear to the new President

that the ACLU is an important American

institution and that we will not tolerate

erosion of respect for civil liberties."

Halterman said that he is particularly ex-

cited about the work of the newly created

ACLU Lawyers Council in soliciting sup-

Associate Director Martha Kegel (standing 1.) and Membership Director Sandy

Holmes happily examine mail sacks full of new memberships.

port for the ACLU from the legal commu-

nity. The Council, which was established

this year, is chaired by Board member Da-

vid Balabanian. In addition to helping

identify potential volunteer attorneys for

the ACLU, the Council has raised about

$27,000 for the ACLU's legal programs

from lawyers who have joined the Coun-

cil.

ACLU Defends

Doctor with AIDS

he FBI cannot terminate its con-

: tract with a physician in a Bay

Area hospital because he has

AIDS, according to a ruling from the U.S.

District Court on October 19.

Dr. Doe, whose identity is protected by

a court order, performed pre-employment

and annual physical exams for FBI agents.

through a contract at a local hospital for

four years.

When the FBI learned that Dr. Doe had

been diagnosed with Kaposi's Sarcoma, an

AIDS diagnosis, appointments for physi-

cals were canceled and the agency threa-

tened to terminate its contract. 0x00B0

Represented by ACLU-NC staff attor-

ney Matthew Coles, Joanne Frankfurt of

the Employment Law Center and Kirke

M. Hasson and Christopher Byers of

Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro, Dr. Doe was

informed by his own physician that he

could work without risk of transmitting

HIV, the virus which causes AIDS, to his

patients.

The National Centers for Disease Con-

trol has established guidelines for health

care workers with AIDS that clearly state

that physicians need not be restricted from

patient contact unless they perform "inva-

sive" procedures such as surgery. Physical

exams do not include "invasive" proce-

dures.

According to Coles, with the 1978 anti-

discrimination amendments to the Reha-

bilitation Act, it was the intent of Con-

gress to prevent discrimination by any fed-

eral agency on the basis of disability or

medical condition. "This case underscores

the need for enforcing the Rehabilitation

Act which was designed to prevent dis-

crimination based on inappropriate fear of

disabilities including AIDS. Such fears are

not borne out by the medical facts," Coles

added.

Attorney Frankfurt was pleased with the

court ruling. "We believe that the FBI's

reactions are the result of misplaced fears

and unwarranted stereotypes about AIDS

and that such discrimination by any

branch of the federal government must not

be condoned."

Volunteers are also reporting enthusias-

tic responses to the ACLU's general fund-

raising campaigns. The Major Gift Cam-

paign, led by Board member Milton Estes,

has already raised $270,000 in gifts and

pledges. The grassroots Bill of Rights

Campaign, which brings together about

100 volunteers to make calls to members,

has already raised $50,000 according to

Campaign chair Marlene De Lancie.

The three campaigns are working to raise

a total of $505,000.

To make a tax-deductible contribu-

tion to the ACLU-NC Foundation, use

the coupon on page 4 of the enclosed

1988 Legal Docket or contact Asso-

ciate Director Martha Kegel at 415/

621-2493.

Legislative Director

The ACLU affiliates of Northern and Southern California are currently seeking a

full-time Legislative Director for their joint Legislative Office in Sacramento.

The position requires an attorney with substantial experience with the legisla-

tive process and lobbying strategies along with a strong commitment to civil liber-

ties. For a job description, please call 415/621-2493.

i"

Howard Friedman, Chair of the

ACLU-NC Board from 1961 to 1965,

died of a heart attack on October 29.

Friedman, chair of the architecture de-

partment at the University of California

at Berkeley, had a career which was

characterized by an exceptional range of

distinguished architectural practice, in-

novative social theory, teaching and

public service.

A New York native, Friedman re-

ceived a degree in architecture from

U.C. Berkeley in 1949. He was elected

to the ACLU-NC Board in 1956.

As Board Chair, Friedman led the or-

ganization through what he characterized

as "new and different" activities. Among

them were the ACLU-NC's successful

efforts to defeat Proposition 14 which

would have removed barriers to segre-

gated housing, the establishment of a

statewide legislative program, the inte-

gration of Chapters and the affiliate

Board, and the solicitation of funds to

- Howard Friedman

establish an ACLU Southern Regional

Office in Georgia.

During Friedman's tenure as Chair,

the ACLU-NC was still not a "com--

pletely integrated affiliate" of the Na-

tional ACLU, having parted ways many

years earlier over the issues of Japanese

American internment and McCarthyism.

Friedman set up a special committee to

examine the ACLU-NC relationship

with the national organization which

eventually led to reaffiliation in 1973.

Active in many civic affairs, Fried-

man was a trustee of Berkeley's Univer-

sity Art Museum, the UC Berkeley

Foundation and Mills College. He also

served as chair of the trustees of Domin-

ican College and president of the Jewish

Home for the Aged.

Friedman is survived by his wife

Phyllis, his two sons David and Robert

and his daughter Eleanor, a former

member of the ACLU-NC Board of Di-

rectors.

ae

aclu news

nov./dec. 1988

Rights Day ...

Continued from p. |

dred boycott leaders to jail. White segrega-

tionists turned to violence. Bombs explod-

ed in four Black churches and later in the

home of Dr.King.

But the Blacks of Montgomery persist-

ed, and in November1956, the Supreme

Court outlawed segregation on local bus

lines.

After her arrest triggered a wave of pro-

test that reverberated throughout the Unit-

ed States, Parks continued to play an ac-

In 1987, she founded the Rosa and Ray-

mond Parks Institute for Self Develop-

ment which motivates and directs youth to

_ achieve their highest potential.

Parks has received ten honorary doctor-

ate degrees and the keys to many cities.

Her honors include the NAACP's Sprin-

gearn Award, the United Auto Workers

Social Justice Award and the Martin Lu-

ther King, Jr. Non-Violent Peace Prize.

According to Halterman, "She exempli-

fies all that the civil rights movement

stood for - personal courage, moral

strength and fortitude, and a clear and un-

ambiguous commitment to doing that

which was right."

Field Program

Monthly Meetings -

Chapter Meetings

(Chapter Meetings are open to all inter-

ested members. Contact the chapter acti-

vist listed for your area.)

B-A-R-K Chapter Meeting: (Usually

tive role in the burgeoning Civil Rights

Movement. In 1965 she began working

for Michigan Congressman John Con-

yers.

Keynote Speaker

National ACLU Legal Director john

powell has a breadth of experience and a

national vantage point which give him

rare insight into the continuing struggle

for civil rights and civil liberties, the sub-

ject of his Bill of Rights Day address.

As Legal Director he is responsible for

the ACLU's Supreme Court litigation and

supervises the work of national staff liti-

gators and 10 national litigation projects.

Nationally, the ACLU handles 6000 cases

a year. The ACLU appears more often be-

fore the Supreme Court than any other or-

ganization except the U.S. Department of

Justice.

A native of Detroit, before coming to

the ACLU powell was on the faculty of

the University of San Francisco Law

School. Previously he served as Executive

Director of Legal Services of Greater Mia-

mi.

A graduate of Stanford University and

Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law,

powell has traveled extensively in Africa,

India, Europe and Asia.

The Bill of Rights Day Celebration

will be held at the Sheraton Palace

Hotel in San Francisco on Sunday,

December 11. The program begins at

5 PM (refreshments and no-host bar

at 4 PM). Tickets for the event are

$12 and are available from the ACLU.

Call 415/621-2493.

ACLU National Legal Director john

powell.

Third Annual Benefit

for the Bill of Rights Campaign

Three former S.F. Stand Up Comedy

Competition winners

DOUG FERRARI

JIM SAMUELS

WARREN THOMAS

Monday, January 16 at 9 PM

Punchline

444 Battery

San Francisco

For more information:

415/641-0889

Tickets: $7.00

from BASS or at the door

| Card Carrying Comics |

Join us for this hysterical "Pre-inaugural Bash"

fourth Thursday) Members urgently

needed to staff hotline, serve on Chapter

Board, help organize chapter activities.

Contact Tom Sarbaugh, 415/428-1819

(day) or Florence Piliavin, 415/848-

5195 (eve).

Earl Warren (Oakland/Alameda)

Chapter Meeting: (NOTE DATE

CHANGE: Second Wednesday of the

month). December 14 and January 11.

Contact Abe Feinberg, 415/451-1122.

Fresno Chapter Meeting: (Usually

third Tuesday) Contact Mindy Rose for

December and January meeting dates,

209/486-7735.

Gay Rights Chapter Meeting: (Usu-

ally first Wednesday) December 7 and

January 4, 7 PM, ACLU Office, 1663

Mission Street, #460, S.F. Contact

Doug Warner, 415/621-3900

Marin County Chapter Meeting:

(Usually third Monday) December 19

and January 16. Contact Eileen Sied-

man, 415/383-0848.

Mid-Peninsula (Palo Alto area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually fourth

Wednesday) December 28 and January

25, 8 PM, All Saints Episcopal

Church, 555 Waverly, Room 15, Palo

Alto. Contact Lena Billings, 415/326-

0926 or Les Earnest, 415/941-3984

(eves).

Monterey Chapter Meeting: (Usually

fourth Tuesday) Annual Meeting now

being planned for Saturday, January 28.

Contact Richard Criley, 408/624-7562.

Mt. Diablo (Contra Costa County)

Chapter Meeting: (NOTE DATE

CHANGE: Third Monday of the month)

December 19 and January 16. Contact

Beverly Bortin, 415/934-1927.

North Peninsula (San Mateo area)

Chapter Meeting: (Usually third Mon-

tact Ward Clark, 415/593-1260 (eves).

Sacramento Valley Chapter Meet-

Yolo County Chapter Meeting:

day) December 19 and January 16. Con-

ing: (Usually second Wednesday) De-

cember 14 and January 11. Contact Joe

Gunterman, 916/447-8053.

San Francisco Chapter Meeting:

(Usually fourth Tuesday) Members ur-

gently needed to serve on Chapter

Board, help organize chapter activities.

Contact Marion Standish 415/863-

3520.

Santa Clara Chapter Meeting: (Usu-

ally first Tuesday) December 6 and Jan-

uary 3. Contact Christine Beraldo, 408/

554-9478.

Santa Cruz Chapter Meeting: Spe-

cial Meeting on Monday, December 12

with National ACLU Legal Director

john powell. Members urgently needed

to serve on Chapter Board, help plan

chapter activities. Contact Bob Taren,

408/429-9880.

Sonoma Chapter Meeting: Annual

Dinner, Friday, January 27 at Druids

Hall in Santa Rosa. No-host bar at 6

PM, delicious dinner at 7 PM. Tickets

are $8.00 in advance, $11.00 at the

door. People who join the ACLU in

December and January will be admitted

free! To order tickets, please send a

check (made out to ACLU Sonoma

County Chapter) and a stamped, self-

addressed envelope to ACLU Sonoma

Chapter, PO Box 14181, Santa Rosa,

CA 95402. Contact Judy McCann, 707/

527-9381 (days).

(Usually third Wednesday) Contact

Casey McKeever, 916/666-3556.

Field Committee

Meetings/

Events (c)

1988 Bill of Rights Day Celebration:

Sunday, December 11. Honoring Rosa

Parks with the Earl Warren Civil Lib-

erties Award, No-host bar 4 PM, Pro-

gram 5 PM. Sheraton Palace Hotel, San

Francisco. (See additional details, sto-

ry page 1.)

1989 Field Priority Setting Session:

Saturday, January 14, 10:30 AM to

2:30 PM, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission

Street, #460, San Francisco. Contact

Marcia Gallo, 415/621-2493.

Crowd Control ...

Continued from p. 2

that only made recommendations about

crowd control policy.

The grand jury's report included 16 rec-

ommendations, none of which addressed

the protection of First Amendment rights.

According to Crew, "The problem is that

the grand jury was neither assigned nor

equipped to consider such policy questions.

Instead of doing their job, they tried doing

someone else's - and botched it.

"Additionally, we are outraged that peo-

ple who voluntarily cooperated with the

OCC were then hauled before a secret grand

jury without the right to counsel, without

immunity, and were apparently questioned

. about their political affiliations," he added.

Crew charged that the District Attorney

"must take responsibility for this fiasco,

and insure that in the future a criminal

grand jury is not allowed to run amok."

The ACLU-NC Police Practices Project

is particularly critical that the primary rec-

ommendation of the grand jury is an ex-

pansion of police intelligence gathering on

lawful protest groups.

"This is a recommendation which is not

only unconstitutional and counter-

productive, but also specifically forbidden

by the Intelligence Division's own very

minimal guidelines," said Crew.

ACLU

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California

1988 Legal Docket

ACLU Fights for the Rights of

Women

Committee to Defend

Reproductive Rights v. Kizer II.

- (California Supreme Court)

In May, the California Supreme Court

let stand a lower court ruling that blocked

the restrictions on state funding of abor-

tions and ordered state officials to contin-

ue to provide funding for Medi-Cal abor-

tions.

The ACLU-NC, for the tenth consecutive

year, represented a coalition of civil rights

groups, women's organizations, health

providers and taxpayers, in challenging

the state Legislature's Budget Act restric-

tions on the funds. The ACLU has success- ~

fully challenged the cuts - which not only

violate the equal protection and privacy

protections of the state Constitution, but

also the Constitution's "single subject" rule

- since 1978 when the Legislature first re-

stricted Medi-Cal funding for abortion. If

implemented, the cuts would deny abor-

tion funding for 80,000 indigent women -

one-quarter of them teenagers - each

year.

Committee to Defend

Reproductive Rights v. Kizer IV

(Court of Appeal)

In July, for the eleventh time in as many

years, the ACLU-NC filed its suit challeng-

ing the Legislature's refusal to provide full

Medi-Cal funding for abortions. Two days

after the suit was filed, the Court of Appeal

issued a stay allowing the continuation of

full Medi-Cal funding for abortions pend-

ing a final decision. :

In July, the state Attorney General an-

nounced that his office would not defend

the state in the lawsuit.

_ In September, the Court of Appeal is-

sued its final ruling, identical to last year's,

prohibiting the cuts from going into effect.

Fluty v. Swoap

(Placer County Superior Court)

A taxpayer's suit filed by the American

Life Legal Foundation to halt Medi-Cal

funding of abortion services until the state

establishes procedures for special scrutiny

of post-13 week abortions and post 20-

week abortions was thwarted when the

ACLU intervened. ACLU arguments

stopped the issuance of a Temporary Re-

straining Order and an injunction.

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 cannot exclude women from

membership as long as it maintains its rela-

tionship with the sheriff's department.

The ACLU represented an experienced

and accomplished horsewoman who sued

the Mounted Patrol and the San Mateo

County Sheriff's Department for sex dis-

crimination after attempting to become a

member of the all-male Patrol for almost a

decade. The ACLU is now appealing the

court's denial of attorneys fees.

Minorities

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson

Company

(U.S. Supreme Court)

The ACLU-NC, on behalf of the na-

tional ACLU, filed an amicus brief in the

nation's highest court in April in support

of Richmond, Virginia's set-aside pro-

gram for minority-owned businesses.

The ACLU argued that Richmond's pro-

gram is "not only permissible, but indis-

pensable..."

A ruling in favor of Richmond, which

would also affect similar programs used

by the State of California, Oakland and

San Francisco, would allow local govern-

ments to use affirmative action programs

to remedy discrimination against minori-

ties without proof of any past discrimina-

tion.

The ordinance, adopted by the Rich-

mond City Council for a five-year period,

requires that contractors receiving City

contracts award 30 percent of all subcon-

tract funds to businesses owned by mi-

norities. The program is being challenged

by a white-owned company, claiming

that their constitutional right to equal pro-

tection is violated by the ordinance.

Common Cause of California v.

Los Angeles County

(California Supreme Court)

A ruling from Los Angeles Superior Court,

upheld by the Court of Appeal, could

bring about the registration of hundreds

of thousands of eligible low-income and

minority voters. In 1986, the ACLU-NC

joined the Southern California affiliate in

this lawsuit seeking to require local gov-

ernment Officials to institute affirmative

voter registration programs where there is

evidence of underregisration of low-

income and minority voters.

The Superior Court and then the Court

of Appeal issued a preliminary injunction

requiring the County to take steps to reg-

ister underregistered voters. The Califor-

nia Supreme Court granted hearing; argu-

ments were held and a decision from the

high court is pending.

Cortez v. UCSF

(Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission)

Hospital workers at the University of

California (San Francisco), represented

by the ACLU -NC and the Mexican Ameri-

can Legal Defense and Educational Fund

(MALDEF) in June filed discrimination

complaints against the university in pro-

test to an "English-only" rule imposed on

employees.

The charges assert that the rules are il-

legal because they constitute national ori-

gin discrimination forbidden by civil

rights laws. In January, in a similar case,

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held

that a Los Angeles area municipal court's

English-only rule is a violation of Title

VII, the federal anti-discrimination law.

International Molders v. Nelson

(U.S. District Court)

A precedent-setting ruling by the U.S.

District Court in 1987 declared that the Im-

migration and Naturalization Service (INS)

unconstitutionally violated the rights of

individuals while conducting workplace

raids in search of undocumented work-

ers. The court ruled that INS use of a

"general" warrant to search, seize, and ar-

rest persons who were not specifically

named in the search warrant was "patent-

ly invalid."

In 1982, the ACLU-NC, MALDEF,

CRLA, the Asian Law Caucus, and the Na-

tional Lawyers Guild filed a class action

lawsuit challenging a nationwide sweep

by the INS called Operation Jobs and sub-

sequent INS raids. A landmark injunction

was issued by the U.S. District Court in

1985 forbidding INS agents from entering

worksites without a valid warrant or con-

sent, and from unlawfully questioning

and detaining workers without reasona-

ble suspicion that the person was unlaw-

fully in the country. This injunction was

substantially affirmed by the Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals.

The case will come to trial in January

1989.

EEOC v. Tortilleria "La Mejor"

(U.S. District Court)

In a case which could potentially im-

pact millions, the ACLU-NC participated

in filing an amicus brief which argued

that despite the 1987 Immigration and Re-

form Control Act, undocumented work-

efs are protected by Title VII.

The suit was brought by an undocu-

mented employee who was fired after she

returned from a pregnancy-related leave.

Youth

Jones v. San Francisco

, (U.S. District Court)

Teenagers seen on the streets of San

Francisco after 11:00 p.m. - with or with-

out the permission of their parents - are

being arrested by police officers under a

San Francisco curfew law which was en-

acted during World War II. On behalf of

three teenagers who were arrested under

the curfew law, and their parents, the

ACLU-NC filed a class action lawsuit in

US. District Court in April.

The suit is asking the court to declare

the law unconstitutional, and to issue an

injunction preventing the police from ar-

resting minors under the curfew law and

from creating police records of such ar-

rests. The suit holds that by stopping, ar-

resting, searching, and detaining minors

under this law, the police are violating the

minors' rights to free speech and associa-

tion, privacy, and movement.

American Academy of Pediatrics

v. Van de Kamp

(California Supreme Court)

In February, the California Supreme

Court unanimously refused to block a

lower court order halting the enforcement

of the new state law requiring teenagers to

obtain parental consent or a court order

before they can have an abortion. This rul-

ing means that teenagers will continue to

be able to obtain abortions - without pa-

rental consent or a court order - while

the legal challenge proceeds through the |

lower courts.

After the parental consent law was

passed by the Legislature and signed by

the Governor in September 1987, the ACLU

and the Adolescent Health Care Project of

the National Center for Youth Law filed a

challenge in the San Francisco Superior

Court seeking to block the law. On behalf

of a coalition of medical organizations

and health care providers, attorneys

argued that under the California Constitu-

tion, minors have an equal right to privacy

in regard to reproductive rights as anyone

else. Last December, the Superior Court is-

sued an injunction stating that there was

reasonable likelihood that the law would

be declared unconstitutional.

People v. Stockton Pregnancy

Control Medical Clinic

(California Court of Appeal)

In July a Stockton pregnancy clinic

which had been prosecuted for violating a

child abuse reporting law was vindicated

by the state Court of Appeal. Clinic staff

were accused of breaking state guidelines

which required doctors, psychiatrists and

other professionals to report to the police

any adolescent under 14 who sought

treatment for a sexually transmitted dis-

ease, abortion, prenatal care or contracep-

tives.

In an amicus brief filed in 1986, attor-

neys from the ACLU-NC and the Adoles-

cent Health Care Project of the National

Center for Youth Law argued that the law

could not be construed to require report-

ing of minors' consensual sexual activity.

The court ruled that voluntary sexual

activity between minors under 14 who are

of similar age is exempt from reporting.

Suspicion of sexual activity between a mi-

nor and someone of a disparate age, how-

ever, must still be reported.

Students

LeVant v. NCAA/Hill and

McKeever v. NCAA

(Santa Clara Superior Court)

In August, in a suit initiated by the"

captain of the Stanford women's diving

team, Stanford athletes represented by the

ACLU-NC won a ruling against mandatory

drug tests that could potentially affect tens

of thousands of college athletes. The San-

ta Clara Superior Court issued a perma-

nent injunction prohibiting the NCAA (Na-

tional Collegiate Athletic Association)

from requiring Stanford students to sub-

mit to drug testing in order to enter NCAA

competitions.

The NCAA began requiring college

athletes to submit to drug testing in 1986.

Representing three students, the ACLU

challenged the testing as an invasion of

the constitutionally protected right to pri-

vacy.

The NCAA competitions involve

250,000 college athletesacross the coun-

try.

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 Rich-

ard Brautigan resulted in a summary judg-

ment from the superior court in 1980 that

the ban was unconstitutional and the

books must be returned to the school li-

brary. The court refused, however, to or-

der the return of the books to English

classes where they had been previously

used.

The ACLU appealed that decision ar-

guing 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 li-

brary. Both appeals are pending.

Gays

California Medical Association v.

Eu

(Sacramento Superior Court)

Representing the California Medical

Association, the California Nurses Associ-

ation, and the Director of the San Francis-

co Department of Public Health, the

ACLU-NC, National Gay Rights Advocates,

and the Lesbian Rights Project lost in their

attempt to keep the Dannemeyer AIDS ini-

tiative (Proposition 102) off the November

ballot in a hearing held in August.

The plaintiffs charged that the peti-

tions Dannemeyer used to obtain signa-

tures for the initiative were misleading as

they failed to tell voters that Proposition

102 would ban anonymous testing for

AIDS. However, the court ruled that there

was no evidence to suggest that those

who signed were confused by the word-

ing.

In addition, the court ruled that the

"single subject" requirement of the Cali-

fornia Constitution was not violated, as

the suit maintained, through the initia-

tive's inclusion of provisions on a variety

of difficult issues.

Warner v. Eu

(Sacramento Superior Court)

In an agreement reached between the

ACLU-NC and the state attorney general's

office August 11, the wording of the bal-

lot summary for Proposition 102 on the

November ballot was changed to reflect

the distinction between testing positive

for HIV and actually having AIDS. Previ-

ously the information had been innaccu-

rate, and thus, misleading.

In the 100-word summary listed in the

voter handbook, the sentence "restricts

confidential testing" was added because

of the settlement. The title of the initiative

which appears both on the ballot and in

the handbook, will be changed from "Ac-

quired Immune Deficiency Syndrome Re-

porting" to "Reporting Exposure to AIDS

Virus." "AIDS virus" was substituted in

the title and summary for the previously

used "AIDS cases."

High Tech Gays v. DISCO

(U.S. Court of Appeal)

The ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief in

July on behalf of High Tech Gays, an or-

ganization of gay and lesbian employees

in the computer industries of Silicon Val-

ley. The government had appealed the or-

ganization's successful challenge to poli-

cy of the Department of Defense which

subjected lesbian and gay applicants for

security clearances to more rigorous

background investigations.

Demonstrators -

Nuremberg Actions v. Contra

Costa

(U.S. District Court)

Charging the Contra Costa Sheriff's De-

partment with the unconstitutional use of

excessive force in arresting peaceful dem-

onstrators, the ACLU-NC filed a lawsuit

against the county in May.

Sheriffs started using "pain holds" in

October, 1987 to arrest protesters at the

Concord Naval Weapons Station. The

holds are intended to produce pain and

frequently result in severe injuries; at least

two protesters have had limbs broken by

the officers' use of the holds.

The plaintiffs belong to Nuremberg

Actions, a group which has been holding

a non-violent vigil at Concord since June,

1987 to protest the U.S. government's

shipment of weapons to Central America.

Bay Area Peace Navy v. U.S.

Navy

(U.S. District Court)

The First Amendment rights of an ar-

mada of peace activists were upheld by a

May ruling which declared the restrictions

imposed by the U.S. Navy on "Fleet Week"

demonstrations by the Bay Area Peace

Navy to be unconstitutional.

The Peace Navy, a flotilla comprised of

nearly 100 small vessels, has been holding

Fleet Week demonstrations in the Bay

Area since 1984. In 1986 the U.S. Navy

barred the Peace Navy from entering a 75-

yard "safety zone" around the reviewing

stand at Aquatic Park. The restrictions ren-

dered the group's peace songs inaudible

and banners unreadable by the spectators

on the pier.

Prior to 1987 Fleet Week, the ACLU-NC

challenged the restrictions on behalf of

the Peace Navy. The District Court judge

issued a Temporary Restraining Order

(TRO) on the eve of the event which al- |

lowed the Peace Navy's protests to be

seen and heard.

The judge's May order, which came af-

ter a two-day trial, made the TRO perma-

nent.

California Stevedore and Ballast

Company v. Bay Area Free South

Africa Movement -

(San Francisco Superior Court)

In 1986, the ACLU represented anti-

apartheid demonstrators in a suit brought

by a shipping company to enjoin anti-

apartheid protests against the unloading

of South African goods at San Francisco's

Pier 80. The ACLU succeeded in defeating

a Temporary Restraining Order sought by

the California Stevedore and Ballast Com-

pany to stop anti-apartheid demonstra-

tions at the docks.

Labor

Wilkinson v. Times Mirror

(California Court of Appeal)

In the first lawsuit to challenge a man-

datory drug testing program for job appli-

cants by a private employer, an Alameda

Superior Court judge issued a preliminary

injunction against the policy in June.

However, less than three weeks later, the

injunction was stayed by the state Court of

Appeal which ruled that testing may con-

tinue while the appeal is pending.

The class action lawsuit was jointly

filed by the ACLU-NC and the Employment

Law Center against a legal publishing firm

on behalf of three women who applied

for editorial and writing positions at the

firm. The publishing company instituted

a policy of across-the-board mandatory

and alcohol testing of all job applicants in

1987.

Hansen v. Turnage

(U.S. District Court)

The ACLU-NC and the Employment

Law Center scored a victory in July when

a federal court enjoined the Veterans Ad-

ministration from using urinalysis for ran-

dom testing on its Western States employ-

ees.

The "Drug-Free Federal Workplace"

program, established by President Rea-

gan's 1986 Executive Order, mandated

testing employees of federal executive

agencies. The class action suit was

brought by five non-union VA hospital

employees; a similar suit was filed on the -

same day in the same court by the Ameri-

can Federation of Government Employ-

ees on the behalf of VA unionized em-

ployees.

The District Court issued a preliminary

injunction against random and post-

accident drug testing, agreeing that the

President's drug testing plan appeared to

violate employees' Fourth Amendment

rights. The Court also limited testing

based on "reasonable suspicion" to sus-

picion of on-the-job drug use or impair-

ment, ruling that anonymous "tips" were

not sufficient grounds to test.

Railway Labor Executives

Association v. Dole

(U.S. Supreme Court)

In a ruling with broad implications for

drug testing of government workers, the

U.S. Court of Appeals in February struck

down as unconstitutional a federal rule

that made railroad train crews subject to

drug and alcohol tests after an accident,

regardless of whether there was individu- -

alized suspicion of drug or alcohol use.

The decision held that such drug tests

represent an unreasonable search and

seizure in violation of the Fourth Amend-

ment.

The case originated when several rail-

workers' unions challenged 1986 Federal

Railroad Administration regulations re- |

quiring mandatory drug and alcohol tests

of all railroad workers following an acci-

dent or rule violation. After a U.S. District

Court ruled that the tests may be done

without probable cause or individualized

suspicion, the ACLU-NC in 1986 filed an

amicus brief in support of the railroad un-

ion in the Court of Appeals.

The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted

review of the case. The ACLU-NC has filed

an amicus brief in the case.

Price v. Pacific Refining

Company

(Contra Costa Superior Court)

The ACLU-NC thwarted an attempt by a

Hercules oil refinery to reinstate compa-

ny-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 test-

ing. In a 1986 challenge to the mandatory

company-wide drug testing policy as a vi-

olation of the workers' privacy rights

guaranteed by the California Constitution,

the ACLU-NC and the Employment Law

Center won an injunction from the Contra

Costa Superior Court.

However, the superior court accepted

-a modified version of the plan proposed

by the company which allows that em-

ployees who work near potentially dan-

gerous equipment or materials be subject

to drug tests if there is a reasonable suspi-

cion by a supervisor of drug use and the

worker fails a fitness for duty examina-

tion administered by a licensed health

professional. Also, employees may be

Page 2 e ACLU Legal Docket " 1988

given a fitness for duty exam without sus-

picion 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 required all

observations supporting a decision to

drug test to be documented in writing.

Random, blanket testing is still barred.

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 shop-

ping center with the same degree of pro-

tection as any other leafleters according to

a state Court of Appeal ruling.

In affirming a lower court ruling, the

Court of Appeal declared that the union

members' right to distribute leaflets at the

mall was protected by the California Con-

stitution. The challenge to the mall's regu-

lations will proceed to trial.

The Disabled -__

Independent Living Resource

Center of San Francisco v. Eu

(San Francisco Superior Court)

In a class action lawsuit filed by the

ACLU-NC and the Disability Rights Educa-

tion and Defense Fund (DREDF) on be-

half of disabled voters, the state was or-

dered in a preliminary injunction issued

in June to increase handicapped accessi-

bility to voting booths throughout the

state in time for the November elections.

The court deemed the inaccessibility of

polling places in California to be a viola-

tion of disabled voters' constitutional

rights.

The order requires each county to

employ one person full-time to carry out

the order, and also mandated that coun-

ties' plans be reported to the Secretary of

State and plaintiffs' counsel. It is now ex-

pected that most of the state's polling

places will be accessible to the disabled

by the November 1988 election.

White v. Department of

Developmental Services

(California Court of Appeal)

Suing on the behalf of two children

with developmental disabilities and their

parents, the ACLU-NC lost an appeal

which would have protected their rights to

privacy. Children being treated at Depart-

ment of Developmental Services (DDS) re-

gional centers must have Client Develop-

ment Evaluation Reports (CDER's)

submitted in order for them to continue

receiving treatment. CDER's discuss per-

sonal, medical and behavioral issues.

In 1984 DDS altered its client identifi-

cation system, establishing Client Master

Files which contain both the client's name

and CDER code, thus eliminating CDER

confidentiality.

The lawsuit was filed in 1985 charging

that the Client Master Files would pave the

way for future harm and discrimination

due to the accessibility of the personal in-

formation in the CDER's. The court ruled

in May that the name-identification system

must be preserved for administrative rea-

sons. ;

Mental Patients -

Riese v. St. Mary's Hospital

(California Supreme Court)

The California Supreme Court granted

review to this lawsuit which challenges

the practice of forcibly medicating with

anti-psychotic drugs persons who have

been involuntarily committed to mental

hospitals. The ACLU-NC filed an amicus

brief in the high court arguing that the for-

cible administration of anti-psychotic

drugs, absent an emergency or a prior ju-

dicial determination that the patient is in-

competent to make treatment decisions,

violates constitutional rights of due pro-

cess, privacy and free expression.

In 1987, the state Court of Appeal held

that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act re-

quired a prior judicial determination of

incapacity to make treatment decisions

before hospital staff could forcibly drug a

mental patient with anti-psychotic medi-

cations.

Tenants

Safadi v. Parkmerced

(San Francisco Superior Court)

Just weeks before the 1987 San Fran-

cisco 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 Superior Court charging that

the landlord's prohibition on posting

signs was illegal and unconstitutional.

A Parkmerced Residential Commu-

nity lease provision, which states that ten-

ants can be evicted for posting signs in

' their windows, is 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 is-

sued a TRO to allow the signs to be post-

ed prior to the November election and a

preliminary injunction was issued in De-

cember. The ACLU will seek a permanent

injunction against the restriction.

Whistler v. Stonestown

(San Francisco Superior Court)

In November of last year, the ACLU-NC

filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior

Court on behalf of a tenant who was de-

nied the right to post a mayoral campaign

sign in the window of his apartment in

the Stonestown apartment complex. The

Stonestown leases include a provision

' saying that tenants must get the landlords

approval for posting signs in the win-

dows of their homes.

Although Stonestown Corporation

agreed the morning the suit was filed to

allow tenants to post campaign signs for

the San Francisco mayoral election, the

suit asks that tenants be allowed to post

signs during all political campaigns.

The suit charges that the lease provi-

sion unreasonably curtails a tenant's fun-

damental right to engage in political ex-

pression in his or her own home.

Prisoners

Gates v. Deukmejian

(U.S. District Court)

Eight prisoners at the California Medi-

cai facility at Vacaville filed a class action

lawsuit in Sacramento U.S. District Court

in January charging that conditions at the

prison are so bad they violate the U.S.

Constitution's prohibition of cruel and

unusual punishment. The lawsuit also

challenges the deplorable treatment of

prisoners in the AIDS wing, where almost

all male prisoners in California with AIDS,

ARC, and most who have tested positive

for the HIV virus are housed.

The prisoners are being represented

by ACLU-NC, which is focusing on the

AIDS issue, and the Prison Law Office.

The lawsuit asks the court for specific im-

provements, particularly in medical and

psychiatric care.

Bramhall v. Rowland

(Sacramento Superior Court)

The ACLU of Northern and Southern

California and the Prison Law Office filed

a lawsuit on behalf of a state taxpayer in

November 1987 in Sacramento Superior

Court to stop the Department of Correc-

tions from continuing to expand the pris-

on system by contracting with private for-

profit firms to run prisons for parole viola-

tors.

The lawsuit charges that the privately-

operated prisons are illegal because the

Legislature has not authorized construc-

tion of these facilities, and because the

operation of the private prisons constitute

an unlawful delegation of the state's po-

lice powers to private individuals. The

lawsuit is asking that the CDC either take

over the private prisons or shut them

down.

Rios et al. v. McCarthy

(Sacramento Superior Court)

Pregnant women and mothers incar-

cerated in California prisons were reunit-

ed with their babies following a 1985 or-

der from the superior court that the

Department of Corrections must imple-

ment a provision allowing for qualified

inmate mothers of children under six to

be placed in a special Community Prison-

er Mother-Infant Care Program.

A suit filed by the ACLU affiliates of

Northern and Southern California and Le-

gal Services for Prisoners with Children

charged that the Department of Correc-

tions was wrongfully separating mothers

from their infants. The Temporary Re-

straining Order allowed certain named

plaintiffs to be placed in the program with

their children, and a settlement is pro-

ceeding for the larger class of plaintiffs.

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 Direc-

tor of the Department of Corrections indi-

cating that she was a disgrace to her race

was again vindicated in January when the

U.S. District Court reconsidered its earlier

ruling which found that the inmate should

not have been punished for exercising his

First Amendment rights. The amended

decision, based on recent U.S. Supreme

Court decisions, ruled that there was no

evidence that the inmate's statements

would lead to violence and affirmed its

earlier order on behalf of the prisoner.

The ACLU-NC represented the prisoner

who was sentenced to solitary confine-

ment, denied participation in the work

program, and restricted from most other

prison activities as a result of the letter.

Death Row

Inmates

Davenport v. Vasquez

(Marin County Superior Court)

In October, the ACLU reached a settle-

ment with the state Department of Correc-

tions which provides for more equitable

administration of the Inmate Welfare

Fund as regards Death Row inmates.

In 1985, the ACLU filed a class action

lawsuit on behalf of San Quentin's Death

Row inmates, charging that the adminis-

tration of the Fund was "unequal, unfair

and oppressive."

People v. Fierro

(California Supreme Court)

This case is a direct appeal to the Cali-

fornia Supreme Court from a judgment of

death. The ACLU is arguing that the con-

victed man was denied his constitutional

right to an attorney and to present a de-

fense. Other issues are also raised, in-

cluding the propriety of the admission of

evidence of blood enzyme testing that

linked the convicted man to the crime and

that the jury was not properly instructed

on how to arrive at a verdict.

People v. Howard

(California Supreme Court)

This is a direct appeal to the California

Supreme Court from a judgment of death.

The ACLU is arguing that the conviction

and sentence should be vacated because

the trial was inherently tainted by nume-

orus constitutional and statutory viola-

tions. In addition, the death sentence re-

sulted from unconstitutional procedures.

And for the Rights fo ...

Free Expression-

Simpson v. San Francisco State

University

(San Francisco Superior Court)

Upholding academic freedom, a June

superior court ruling held that San Fran-

cisco State University's restrictions on at-

tendance at a controversial lecture were

unconstitutional. The court struck down

a University policy that allowed adminis-

trators to overrule an academic decision

made by a professor to permit non-

enrolled students and university staff to

attend a guest lecture.

The case originated in 1985 when un-

precedented restrictions were established

for a lecture given by the controversial Is-

raeli politician Rabbi Meir Kahane.

Guadiya Vaishnava Society et al.

v. City and County of San

Francisco

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

Asserting the First Amendment rights

of non-profit organizations including

Greenpeace, the Nuclear Weapons Freeze

Campaign, CISPES, and the Lesbian/Gay

Freedom Day Parade, the ACLU-NC filed

an amicus brief in August to protect the

right to sell advocacy t-shirts on San Fran-

cisco streets.

Bowing to pressure from merchants

and street vendors, the city adopted an or-

dinance which restricted such sales by

non-profits. Although the city later

amended the ordinance to allow the or-

ganizations to sell books, bumper stick-

ers and buttons, T-shirts were still

banned.

The city claims that the non-profits

which display items containing political

messages would threaten the aesthetic

beauty and cause congestion in the Fish-

erman's Wharf and Union Square areas.

However, the ACLU-NC maintains that

measures less invasive of the constitu-

tional right to free speech can achieve

municipal goals in these commercial are-

as.

Jesse Jackson Campaign

Committee v. Oroville Properties

(Sacramento Superior Court)

Challenging a Woodland shopping

center's denial of access to Jesse Jackson

campaign workers, ACLU-NC attorneys

won a permanent injunction from the

court in May.

Campaigning for the June primary

during the month of April, Jackson cam-

paign workers were denied permission to

set up a table to register voters and dis-

tribute campaign material by the mall

management. The campaigners were

banned on the basis that partisan politi-

cal activities were not allowed at the mall.

Korn v. Carey

(U.S. District Court)

A federal court ruling in June upheld

. the right to petition in a post office lobby.

The case originated in 1984 when, in an

effort to get a nuclear-free city measure

ACLU Legal Docket cent 1988 e Page 3

on the fune ballot, Louis Korn set up a

tabie in the Willits Post Office, with the

conser: of the postmaster, to collect the

necessary signatures. After complaints

from some post office patrons, however,

the postmaster asked Korn to vacate the

premises. Despite Korn's assertion of his

First Amendment right to petition, he was

placed under citizens arrest for trespass-

ing in a public place. The charges were

later dropped.

In 1986 the ACLU-NC filed suit in Dis-

trict Court arguing that the postmaster's

actions were unconstitutional. A stipulat-

ed settlement, affirmed by the court, pro-

tects the right of plaintiff and the general

public to use the post office lobby for ex-

pressive activity in the future.

Allende v. Schultz

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

In April, five years after human rights

leader Hortensia Allende, the widow of

slain Chilean President Salvador Allende,

was denied a U.S. visa for her speaking

engagements commemorating Interna-

tional Women's Day, the denial was de-

clared illegal.

In 1983, the U.S. government barred

Allende from speaking in the U.S., claim-

ing that her membership in the Women's

International Democratic Federation, and

an honor granted by the World Peace

- Council, demonstrated a communist affili-

ation. The ACLU charged that the denial

violated the First Amendment rights of

those who wished to hear her speeches in

the U.S.

Last year, in a similar ACLU visa denial

case on behalf of Nicaraguan Interior Min-

ister Tomas Borge, former NATO General

Nino Pasti and two representatives of the

Cuban Women's Federation, the U.S. Su-

preme Court upheld in a 3-3 ruling a lower

court decision that the visa denials of

- those persons were improper.

ACLU v. Murphy

(Court of Appeal)

In a case designed to determine

whether the San Francisco Police Depart-

ment was conducting political surveil-

lance of the Ku Klux Klan and whether

this is in accordance with department

guidelines, the state Court of Appeal ruled

in 1987 that the Department must turn over

to the ACLU a videotape related to the po-

lice refusal to allow a Klan demonstration

during the 1984 Democratic Convention.

The suit also seeks copies of guide-

lines regulating the gathering and dissem-

ination of intelligence information by the

San Francisco Police Department. As the

superior court denied access to most of

those records, the ACLU is now appealing

that ruling.

Privacy

Doe v. FBI ~

(U.S. District Court)

The ACLU-NC and the Employment

Law Center are representing a doctor from

a San Francisco hospital who is suing the

FBI for refusing to allow him to perform

physical exams on employees and job ap-

plicants because he is suffering from a

life-threatening ailment.

The lawsuit, filed in October in federal

court, charges that the FBI has violated the

doctor's right to privacy and caused him

pain and emotional distress "which may

aggravate his handicap and imperil his

health."

Citizens for a Better Environment

v. City of Vallejo

(Solano County Superior Court)

In Vallejo, a city ordinance required

that ali 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 be-

half of Citizens for a Better Environment,

Citizens Action League and Greenpeace,

Page 4 e ACLU Legal Docket e 1988

argued that the ordinance is unconstitu-

tional as it violates the canvassers' privacy

and their First Amendment right to com-

municate with the people of Vallejo.

The city has now amended its solicita-

tion ordinance to eliminate the finger-

print requirement. A settlement for attor-

neys' fees is pending.

Due Process

San Francisco Police Officers

Association v. San Francisco

(Court of Appeal)

The First District Court of Appeal

ruled in June, despite continued objec-

tions from the San Francisco Police Offi-

cers Association, that complainants and

their representatives have the right to par-

ticipate fully in hearings of the Office of

Citizen Complaints (OCC) and are entitled

to access to evidence for hearing prepara-

tion. The ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief

with the Bar Assocation of San Francisco,

arguing for full involvement by and rep-

resentation for complainants. The Court

of Appeal ruled in the City's favor, hold-

ing that complainants and their represen-

tatives are permitted to attend the OCC

hearings.

The Court held, however, that the

findings and recommendations of the

OCC regarding discipline were confiden-

(c) tial:

Donnelly v. Doe

(San Francisco Superior Court)

In March, the San Francisco Superior

Court overturned a small claims court

judgment against a woman who was

charged with defamation of character by

a police officer against whom she filed a

complaint with the Office of Citizen Com-

plaints.

In 1987, the woman had filed a com-

plaint with the OCC against two officers

alleging that she had been falsely arrested

and brutalized. The woman, a transvestite

suspected of being a prostitute and

charged with "blocking the sidewalks,"

had all her criminal charges dropped.

Moments before the OCC hearing, she

was served with a summons informing

her that she was being charged with defa-

mation of character by one of the officers.

Though the small claims court upheld the

officer's charge, the ACLU successfully

appealed the ruling in superior court ar-

guing that the officer"s suit was intended

to harass the woman and intimidate her

from making complaints to the OCC.

People v. Spain

(U.S. Court of Appeals)

Johnny Larry Spain, a former Black

Panther Party member who was convict-

ed 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 chal-

lenging Spain's conviction because there

was no showing of a necessity for the

shackling during trial, and the prejudice

that resulted from his being shackled in

front of the jury.

The shackling issue is currently on

appeal in the Court of Appeals. Spain

was released from prison this year.

People v. Caswell

(California Supreme Court)

In August, the California Supreme

Court upheld a state law forbidding loi-

tering around a public toilet for the pur-

pose of soliciting or engaging in a lewd

act. The ACLU affiliates of Northern and

Southern California had argued in a

friend of the court brief that the law was

unconstitutional.

The ACLU argued that in addition to

violating California's constitutional guar-

antee of due process and uniform en-

forcement of laws, the law encourages ar-

bitrary and discriminatory enforcement

by requiring police to guess at the intent

of a person lingering in a restroom.

Kirk v. City of San Francisco

(U.S. District Court)

The ACLU is representing a man who

was unlawfully arrested and lost his job

after San Francisco police falsely claimed

that he had been required to register as a

sex offender because of erroneous police

computer information.

The District Court ruled that the plain-

tiff's constitutional rights were violated

but that the City was not liable because he

was not arrested pursuant to a custom or

policy. The case against the individual

police officer responsible for the arrest

will go to trial.

Freedom from

Unreasonable

Search

Estes v. McCarthy

(Marin Superior Court)

The ACLU is challenging new regula-

tions of the California Department of Cor-

rections which impose random parking

lot searches of visitors to inmates incar-

cerated 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 superior court ruled in a prelimi-

nary 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 -

previously, 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 de-

tained 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 granting

monetary damages to the strip search vic-

tim; however, a separate aspect of the

lawsuit - challenging the strip search

policy of the Police Department - is

awaiting a final judgment.

Freedom of

Religion

Lyng v. North Indian Cemetery

Protective Agency

(U.S. Supreme Court)

In a ruling which dissenting justices

said leaves Native Americans with abso-

lutely no constitutional protection from

perhaps the gravest threat to their relig-

ious practices, the U.S. Supreme Court

ruled in April that religious rights do not

outweigh the right of the government to

construct a road through sacred Indian

ceremonial lands near the Klamath River.

The ACLU-NC had joined the national

ACLU and several ACLU affiliates as

friends of the court in representing the

Yurok, Karok, and Talowa tribes in their

lawsuit to protect the sacred grounds,

known as the "High Country," in Humbolt

County from being degraded by the pro-

posed federal government timber road.

The ACLU argued that the Indians' right to

free exercise of religion would be violat-

ed by the road because an indispensable

element of their religious practice would

be taken from them by the government

for no compelling reason.

Rippberger and Middleton v.

Superior Court; Walker v.

Superior Court

(California Supreme Court)

The ACLU-NC joined the Southern Cal-

ifornia affiliate in filing a friend of the

court brief in the California Supreme

Court in September 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 ar-

rested failed to provide fair notice of un-

lawful conduct and that the parents rea-

sonably believed they were exempt from

criminal liability because they relied on a

law which exempted healing through

prayer from the definition of child ne-

glect.

The Supreme Court heard arguments

this year in an appeal of a lower court rul-

ing that parents providing spiritual heal-

ing for their children are liable if treatment

is unsuccessful.

The 1988 Legal Docket was produced

by ACLU News editor Elaine Elinson

with volunteer assistance from

Mike Nagler and Susanne Samuel.