vol. 57, no. 3

aclu news

| Organization

| U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit No. 4424

San Francisco, Ca

i

|

Non-Profit |

Volume LVII

may - june 1993

No. 3

- EEOC Upholds Filipino Guards' Charges

of `Accent Discrimination"

lorentino Ramirez, a 57-year old

F San Francisco security guard was

honored in 1984 by then-Mayor

Dianne Feinstein for his exemplary service

as chair of the Filipino-American South of

Market Neighborhood Association and in

1990 for his work for American Mutual

Protective Bureau. Perfecto Estrada served

for over 25 years in the Philippine Armed

Services, where he gave seminars and

_ wrote reports in English; after moving to

Sacramento, he became a member of the

Valley Hi Lions Club where he engages in

public speaking in English.

Estrada, Ramirez and their colleagues

Carbito Rose, Teodulfo Loyola, and

Cayetano Decena had all been working as

security guards for American Mutual

Protective Bureau (AMBP) which has con-

tracts with the General Services Adminis-

tration and the federal government to pro-

vide security guards in various government

buildings in San Francisco. The men had

worked in government buildings for three

to nine years without incident or complaint

about their English language ability.

That is why they were all shocked and

humiliated when all five were removed

from their posts at the Department of

Treasury building on the grounds that

there was a problem with their language

ability. They had been removed by the

AMBP at the instruction of the U.S.

General Services Administration.

"IT felt confused and embarrassed,"

explained Ramirez. "I could not believe

that the AMPB or the GSA had ordered

my removal after so many years of satis-

Security guards Carbito Rose, Florentino Ramirez and Perfecto Estrada (l.-r.)

appeared at a press conference to announce the EEOC ruling that they had been e

unjustly removed from their posts for "accent discrimination."

"Their removal was unwarranted. Each

was and is sufficiently fluent and

comprehensible in English ... Their

removal was unlawfully based on their

accent, race and national origin - not on

their ability to perform their jobs."

factory security service."

On. Apul 7," the US. Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) upheld the accent discrimination

charge filed by the five Filipino security

guards. After they filed the complaint with

the EEOC charging AMPB with violating

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

they faced retaliation from their employers

in the form of insults, threats and harass-

ment.

Estrada said that although the termina-

tion and its consequences have made him

lose confidence and self-esteem, "The

EEOC determination helped because it

gives me a sense that something is being

done to restore our honor and dignity."

The guards are represented by attor-

neys from the Asian Law Caucus (ALC),

the ACLU-NC and the Employment Law

Center of the Legal Aid Society of San

Francisco (ELC).

ALC attorney Lora Foo called the situ-

ation "outrageous." "Based on one alleged

incident, where one federal official com-

plained about a supposed `language bar-

rier,' the livelihoods of five hard working

people are shattered by a federal agency

mandated by law not to do business with

companies that discriminate - and they' re

the ones who discriminate!"

The EEOC Letter of Determination

states that "the Commission finds reason-

able cause to believe that charging parties

were unlawfully removed and/or dis-

charged from their posts, as alleged,

because of their race and national origin."

Continued on page 9

New Verdicts Spotlight `Pervasive Police Abuse'

ACLU-NC Warned S.F.

Mayor to Protect Protestors'

Rights

6 6 ince the moment it was tele-

vised nationwide, the beating

of Rodney King by Los

Angeles police officers has focused

national attention on the issues of racism

and police misconduct," said ACLU-NC

Police Practices Project Director. John

Crew, moments after the new verdicts in

the federal civil rights trial were

announced on April 17.

"The beating confronted the entire

nation with a reality that many long had

known: Police brutality is real and perva-

sive. Yet not one single piece of legislation

in Sacramento or Washington, D.C. has

been passed to address this problem. That

is what makes the work of grassroots acti-

vists to hold their police departments

accountable so valuable,' Crew added.

Crew and ACLU-NC Field Representative

Nancy Otto are currently working with

ACLU chapters and other community

groups in San Jose, Stockton, Santa Cruz,

Monterey County and Humboldt County

on creating civilian review boards for

police and other law enforcement agencies.

Early warning

Prior to the April 17 verdicts, the

ACLU-NC, in a 5-page letter hand-

delivered to San Francisco Mayor Frank

Jordan and the Board of Supervisors on

April 8, called upon city officials to "rec-

ognize and act upon their obligation to

permit peaceful, nonviolent: protestors to

exercise their First Amendment rights in

the streets of San Francisco in the wake of

the verdicts" expected in the federal civil

rights prosecution of the Los Angeles

police officers who beat Rodney King.

The letter, written by ACLU-NC

Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich, Staff

Counsel Alan Schlosser and _ Police

Practices Project Director John Crew, was

also announced by Crew at a press confer-

ence organized by the National Lawyers

Guild on the same day at Pier 38, the site

of the mass detention of protestors in last

year's LAPD trial demonstrations. Also

speaking at the press conference were

Supervisor Caroli Migden, Rachel

Lederman of the National Lawyers Guild,

Don Hesse of the San Francisco Human

Rights Commission, and Diane T. Chin of

the Lawyers' Committee For Civil Rights.

The special ACLU-NC report, State of

Emergency: The Attack on Civil, Liberties

in San Francisco, April 30-May 8, 1992,

which severely criticized last year's

response of a state of emergency, curfew

and mass arrests, contains specific recom-

Continued on page 8

Court Dismisses Libel Suit

- Against Welfare Rights

Group

Lucy K. McCabe on March 30 dis-

missed a libel suit against a welfare

rights organization, the General Assistance

Advocacy Project (GAAP), brought by a

S an Francisco Superior Court Judge

| welfare supervisor who had been criticized

in an editorial written by a GAAP staff

member and distributed with the Street

Sheet newspaper.

GAAP Board member Julia Velson

applauded the court's dismissal of the

case. "Libel lawsuits against a small

organization trying to protect the rights of

the poor threaten free expression,' she

said.

The suit, Tepper v. Regents of the

University of California, arose from a

Street Sheet editorial in which GAAP

employee Judith Blochowiak criticized

Jesse Tepper, a Department of Social

Services supervisor, for engineering the

arrest of a GAAP client in violation of

welfare confidentiality regulations.

Referring to a controversial proposed fraud

detection program for welfare recipients,

the editorial questioned who were the

"criminals" and labelled the supervisor

"the Hitler of the GA department."

GAAP, a nonprofit homeless advocacy

organization, and its former employee

were defended in the lawsuit by ACLU-

NC cooperating attorneys Bernard A. Burk

and Peter Jakab, both of Howard, Rice,

Nemerovski, Canady, Robertson and Falk,

and ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret

Crosby.

Burk argued that the Street Sheet edito-

rial was clearly constitutionally protected

because it could not reasonably be under-

stood to assert any false statement of fact.

"Calling that public official `a Hitler'

obviously did not literally accuse him of

invading Poland," Burk said. "It expressed

a deeply felt general condemnation of his

conduct, like calling him a fool or a jerk.

"There is no question about what Jesse

Tepper did. The only question seems to be

what people can call him as a result," Burk

said. "No one, and especially not a public

servant, has a legal right to be criticized in

genteel terms.

"What plaintiff absorbed in this case

was nothing more than the cost of living in

a free society, and of drawing his pay

check from the public fisc," he added.

Burk also characterized the libel suit as

a "classic SLAPP suit of the kind targeted

by recent legislation for early termination,

in order to avoid chilling citizens' exercise

of their right to speak out.

"This case was about a newspaper edi-

torial concerning the job-related miscon-

duct of a public official," he pointed out.

"It's hard to find speech any closer to the

core of the First Amendment, or to the

Continued on page 9

y aclu news

may - jun 1993

he policy that the ACLU national

i board recently adopted recognizes

that society has a right to treat dis-

criminatory criminal acts more severely

than other criminal exploits. The ACLU

policy recognizes that anti-discrimination

laws have long prohibited discriminatory

acts that would not otherwise be illegal -

refusing to hire someone, for example -

because of society's consensus that such

discrimination harms not only the immedi-

ate victim but also the larger group to

which the victim belongs and our hetero-

geneous society more generally.

Some critics imply that the ACLU pol-

icy would support laws allowing prosecu-

tors and judges in any criminal case to

inspect a defendant's magazines, the

organizations he supports or the speeches

he has made, and then, if they reflect "big-

otry," to subject him to higher penalties.

Such laws would indeed punish people for

who they are and what they believe rather

than for what they did. The ACLU would

oppose such laws, and they undoubtedly

would be declared unconstitutional.

Racial intimidation

But suppose a black family, newly

moved into an otherwise all-white neigh-

borhood, had its home vandalized in the

middle of the night with a leaflet nailed to

the door that said, "Niggers Get Out."

Suppose you were the prosecutor and you

had a choice of charging the suspect with

simple vandalism or with the more serious

crime - one carrying a higher penalty -

of vandalism intended to deny equal hous-

ing opportunity to black families. Which

would you choose?

Would you decide that this was a teen-

age prank, like throwing eggshells filled

with paint at random targets? Or would

you decide that this was an act of racial

intimidation that justified a more serious

penalty?

It would be an odd result, indeed, if the

state could punish a landlord for refusing

to sell the house in the first instance

"because of race" but could not enhance

The First Amendment

and Bias Crimes

The national Board of the ACLU at its January meeting adopted a pol-

icy which states that "enhancement of punishment is appropriate for hate

crimes because these crimes convey a constitutionally unprotected threat

against the peaceable enjoyment of public places to members of the tar-

geted group."

The ACLU of Northern California is currently a participant in three

hate crimes cases, arguing that California's hate crimes statute, the Bane

Act, is not in violation of the First Amendment. (See article facing page.)

Here, ACLU National President Nadine Strossen explains the thinking

behind the national ACLU policy. This article is adapted from a column

which originally appeared in the Washington Post.

the penalty of a vandal whose act was

intended to have the same result. The key

word is act. In both cases, the state would

be punishing an act of discrimination.

"But how do you know that the van-

dalism was intended to deny housing

because of race," the critics might reply.

"You only know because of the leaflet

pinned to the door."

That leaflet used words. Words are

protected by the First Amendment,

Therefore using the leaflet to show intent

violates the First Amendment, the critic

might argue. With that reasoning, the act

of hate must be treated as an act of simple

vandalism. Make believe the crime and

the note were in fact just an eggshell filled

with paint.

This position is, of course, absurd. It is

absurd because the use of that leaflet to

prove intent is not barred by the First

Amendment any more than using a ransom

note as evidence against a kidnapper is

barred by the First Amendment. Or the

prosecution of a harassing phone caller.

The First Amendment simply does not bar

the use of words to prove criminal intent of

any other element of a crime.

Intent

Those who would argue that criminal

law never considers a defendant's intent in

determining the appropriate level of pun-

ishment are clearly mistaken. Nothing in

the Constitution, including the First

Amendment, forbids the law from treating

a professional killer who intended his vic-

tim's death more harshly than a person

convicted of accidentally causing some-

one's death.

The law already prohibits discrimina-

tory acts based on race, gender, religion,

and, in some jurisdictions, sexual orienta-

tion. Such laws are based on our society's

consensus that such discriminatory acts

are wrong. Why, then, shouldn't the law

treat discriminatory criminal acts more

severely than other criminal acts? Why -

shouldn't the ordinary crimes of vandalism

or assault be converted into something

more serious when they reflect intentional

racial discrimination?

The real question is how such discrimi-

natory intent may constitutionally be

proven. If someone throws a paint-filled

egg at a house, even a house occupied by

blacks, the prosecutor should not use the

fact that the suspect belongs to the Klan or

sent money to David Duke to justify an

enhanced penalty. That would be punish-

ing the suspect for his general beliefs and

associations. The ACLU opposes that.

But the First Amendment is no barrier

to using the leaflet pinned to the victim's

door at the time of the vandalism to show

that it was an intentional act of racial

intimidation.

The First Amendment protects the

right to write racist leaflets, join racist

organizations or to be a racist, It does not

protect the right to engage in racist

attacks. This distinction is critical and

often difficult to draw in particular situa-

tions. But to pretend it doesn't exist dam-

ages both civil rights and civil liberties.

No one defends the First Amendment

more absolutely than the ACLU. But that

does not mean that the law must stand by

helpless and pretend nothing extraordinary

is going on when people are beaten,

assaulted, vandalized and threatened

because of their race, religion, sex or sex-

ual orientation.

Marina Police Officer Shoots Filipino Immigrant

ACLU Files Public Records Suit to Obtain Report

Imost a year after the bullets from

a Marina policeman's gun took the

life of a Filipino immigrant in

Marina, the ACLU-NC filed a lawsuit in

Monterey Superior Court on behalf of the

local Filipino American community to

obtain the undisclosed report of the

Shooting Review Board.

On April 30, 1992, a Marina police

officer shot and killed 27-year-old

Fidelino Grimaje Pasqua as he attempted

to escape from his parents' bathroom,

where he had barricaded himself. In -

response to the community's outrage over

what many felt was an unjustifiable use of

deadly force, the City of Marina appointed

an ad hoc Shooting Review Board, com-

prised solely of law entorcement officials,

to investigate the incident.

The Board cleared the officer of

wrongdoing, and the city refused to

release the report to the public, providing

only a summary of the Board's finding.

"Until the complete report is released,

we cannot put this matter to rest,' said

Efren Iglesia, Incoming Chairperson of the

Monterey County Chapter of the National

Filipino American Council (NFAC-MCC),

the plaintiff in the suit. "The community

needs to know how the Shooting Review

Board reached its conclusions regarding

the police conduct. A summarized, possi-

bly sanitized version of the report released

by the City Attorney is not sufficient."

After unsuccessful attempts to gain

access to the complete report, the NFAC-

MCC turned to the ACLU-NC for assis-

tance. ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen

sent two letters demanding the reports be

released but the city refused to comply. As

a result, on April 7 ACLU-NC cooperating

attorneys Sarah Good and Hubert Cheng,

both of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich and

Efren Iglesia of the National Filipino American Council announces the lawsuit

against the City of Marina.

Rosati, filed suit in Monterey County

Superior Court on behalf of NFAC-MCC.

"The Public Records Act was designed to

prevent local governments such as the

City of Marina from shielding from the

public precisely this kind of public record.

It is only fair and just that the City of

Marina disclose this important informa-

tion," explained Good.

"This suit is an affirmation of the

Filipino American community's belief in

our system of justice," said Iglesia, who

has spearheaded the community's efforts

to obtain the report. "Since the executive

and legislative branches of the government

of the City of Marina have failed us, we

now have to turn to the judicial branch of

Dick Solis

the government for redress of our grie-

vances."

The lawsuit argues that under the

California Public Records Act, law

enforcement investigatory records must be

made public once the investigation is

closed and there is no "concrete and defi-

nite" prospect of enforcement proceedings.

ACLU-NC Monterey County Chapter

Executive Director Richard Criley

explained, "All public agencies in a

democracy must be accountable to the

public. When that agency is authorized to

use deadly force in the course of its

enforcement of the law, accountability for

its actions must be made promptly, com-

pletely, and with no exceptions. The

actions of the City of Marina and its

Department of Public Safety in failing to

adequately investigate the killing of

Fidelino Pasqua and in concealing from

the public the substance of its own internal

investigation are unacceptable in a demo-

cratic society dedicated to equal justice

under law."

aclu news

6 issues a year: January-February, March-April, May-June, July-August,

September -October, and November-December.

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Milton Estes, Chairperson

Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Elaine Elinson, Editor

Nancy Otto, Field Page

ZesTop Publishing, Design and Production

1663 Mission St., 4th Floor

San Francisco, California 94103

(415) 621-2493

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 3

may - jun 1993

ACLU-NC Defends California's

Hate Crimes Law

n a landmark ruling on March 10, the

I California Court of Appeal upheld a

teenager's conviction for beating a

gay man and ruled that the state's hate

crime law does not violate the First

Amendment.

ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed Chen, the

author of an amicus brief in the case (Un

re Joshua H.) praised the court's decision,

which was the first time the appellate

court ruled on the constitutionality of the

Bane Act. The law increases the penalty

for any crime that targets a victim because

of race, religion, national origin or sexual

orientation.

- "We argued that the First Amendment

protects bigoted thought, speech and

advocacy," explained Chen, "but it does

not protect violent acts. The ruling recog-

nizes this crucial distinction and upholds

our argument."

This case attracted national attention

because the gay victim, Richard Kiley,

had set up a video camera in his San Jose

yard which recorded his beating by his

teenaged neighbor. The videotape was

widely shown on television.

The opinion, written by Judge

Christopher Cottle of the Sixth District

Court of Appeal, stated that California's

hate crime law does not punish bigotry

nor discourage free speech. "Rather," the

court opinion stated, "hate crime statutes

proscribe an especially egregious type of

"Hate crime statutes proscribe an

especially egregious type of conduct - that

of selecting crime victims on the basis of

race, color, religion, ancestry, national

origin or sexual orientation."

conduct - that of selecting crime victims

on the basis of race, color, religion, ances-

try, national origin or sexual orientation."

The appellate court also explicitly disa-

greed with court rulings from Wisconsin

and Ohio which struck down similar hate

crimes laws.

The ACLU-NC is also currently

involved in two other law suits defending

the constitutionality of the Bane Act.

People v. Mearra S. involves the prosecu-

tion of a juvenile who, along with three

others, taunted and then physically

attacked a group of gay men in San

Francisco's Castro District. The attack

was preceded and accompanied by homo-

phobic epithets. In Schwarz, et al. v. San

Francisco Superior Court, four sailors are

being prosecuted for attacking a gay man.

The sailors allegedly went to the Castro

District, where one picked up a man at a

bar and led him into an alley where he and

the others physically assaulted him.

According to the Attorney General's pros-

ecution, the sailors confessed that they felt

"stressed out" from work so they decided

to "release some frustrations" by going to

San Francisco to "beat up on homosexu-

als."

Mearra S. is pending in the state Court

of Appeal, First Appellate District. The

Court of Appeal refused to hear the

Schwarz appeal and the case ultimately

was resolved by plea bargains.

On a federal level, the national ACLU

has weighed in with an amicus brief in

support of the Wisconsin hate crimes stat-

ute in the United States Supreme Court.

The suit, Wisconsin y. Mitchell, was

argued in late April. The friend of the

court brief was written by national Legal

Director John Powell and staff attorney

Stephen Shapiro.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to

take the case after the Wisconsin Supreme

Court declared the state's hate crimes

unconstitutional statute in this case of an

African American man convicted on

aggravated battery against a white teen-

ager. Because the state court found that

Todd Mitchell had intentionally selected

his victim because he was _ white,

Wisconsin's penalty enhancement state

was triggered. Mitchell was sentenced to

four years instead of two.

In the ACLU friend of the court brief,

Shapiro and Powell argue that the perpe-

trator was not punished for speech or

expression of his beliefs, but for acting on

those beliefs. The penalty enhancement is

not triggered until after conviction of the

underlying offenses. The ACLU also

argues that the Wisconsin court underval-

ued the state interest in treating bias

crimes more severely.

_EIk Grove High School Students

File Suit Over Censorship of Mural

By Jean Field

V : "Ss ACLU-NC filed suit in

Sacramento County Superior Court

on April 16 on behalf of members

of the Elk Grove High School Model

U.N./Junior Statesmen of America Club,

whose mural celebrating freedom of

expression was censored by school offi-

cials. The suit was filed on behalf of eight

student members of the club against the

Elk Grove Unified School District

Governing Board.

"When the students designed a mural

about First Amendment rights, they didn't

anticipate having to fight a court battle for

their own. But that's what they had to do

after the school district censored their pro-

posed mural of a burning American flag

with the text of the First Amendment and a

citation to the Supreme Court case Texas

v. Johnson, which upheld constitutional

protection for flag burning," explained

ACLU-NC_ cooperating attorney Mark

White.

ACLU-NC cooperating _ attorneys

White and Anna Rossi of the San

Francisco firm Rogers, Joseph, O' Donnell

Quinn, along with ACLU-NC staff

attorney Ann Brick, are representing the

student club members. The suit, Markgraf

v. Elk Grove Unified School District, asks

for injunctive and declaratory relief grant-

ing the students the right to have their

mural take its place on the wall of the

school alongside the murals of other stu-

dent organizations.

Victim of intolerance

"Tt's ironic that a mural created to cele-

brate the First Amendment and its toler-

ance for dissent should itself fall victim to

intolerance," said attorney Brick. "More

than being ironic, however, this censorship

violates the students' constitutional rights,

as well as the rights granted to them by the

California Education Code, which expli-

citly protects freedom of expression within.

schools."

TEXAS VS. JOHNSON 1989 (c)

"RIGHT TO PROTEST"

",,,.RIGHT TO CRITICIZE"

-SENATOR MARGARET CHASE SMITH

Mural design proposed by the Model United Nations Junior Statesman of America Club at

Elk Grove High School.

In the fall of 1991, Elk Grove High

School invited student groups to submit

designs for hallway murals. All the

designs were approved except the Model

U.N./Junior Statesmen Club's proposed

depiction of the burning flag. Principal

Paula Duncan told the students that she did

not approve of the content of the design;

she felt it was too controversial and might

offend other students.

PRINCIPLES OF AMERICANISM-

",,.RIGHT OF INDEPENDENT THOUGH

" RIGHT TO HOLD UNPOPULAR BELIE.

DECLARATION OF CONSCIENCE - 1950

' The next year, the school again solic-

ited mural designs. When the flag mural

proposal was resubmitted, the school con-

cocted a set of guidelines that said "any

form of expression which is profane, dis-

tracting, inciteful, or offensive to individu-

als or groups, or simply inappropriate for a

school setting shall be restricted." The

principal then rejected the Model U.N./

Junior Statesmen Club design.

"The murals were intended to represent

the essence of each organization and

reflect its activities, goals and values,"

explained Heather Markgraf, a senior at

Elk Grove who is now the president of the

Model U.N./Junior Statesmen Club, a 15-

member organization that pro-

motes civic leadership. "Our

design reflects our belief in, and

support of, the constitutional

rights of free speech and free

expression and the tolerance for

public controversy and dissent

which these constitutional rights

protect."

Other student organizations

were allowed to paint murals

with potentially controversial

topics: the American Indian

Movement depicted a_ raised

clenched fist; the Ebony Club

incorporated political figures

like Angela Davis, Huey

Newton and Malcolm X; and the

Asian Pacific Islanders Club

depicted the flags of the People's

Republic of Vietnam and China.

Critical thinking

After repeated, unsuccessful

meetings with numerous school

officials, from the activities

director to the superintendent,

the students and their advisor,

social studies teacher David Hill,

contacted the ACLU-NC for

help.

S "One of the goals of our class

and of our school district is to

teach students critical thinking

skills," explained Hill. "The stu-

dents' innovative mural proposal

and their willingness to fight for

it shows that they have learned

their lesson well."

The ACLU-NC wrote to the

Elk Grove Unified School

District Governing Board outlin-

ing the California Education

Code's protections for student expression.

However, on February 16, the Board voted

to back the decision of the principal.

"It's very inspiring to work on behalf

of young people so knowledgeable and

committed to protecting their constitu-

tional rights," said White. "Through their

club activities, they are not merely learn-

ing to be civic leaders - they already are."

A aclu news

may - jun 1993

Minority Youths, Ejected from Malls, File Suits

to Challenge Discriminatory `Gang Profiles'

By Jean Field

iting the growing use of discrimi-

C natory "gang profiles" to unfairly

eject young minority males from

`shopping malls around _ northern

California, attorneys from the ACLU-NC,

the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights

of the San Francisco Bay Area and private

law firms announced the filing of several

suits against shopping centers in San

Mateo, Sacramento and Newark.

A suit filed today on May 5 in U.S.

District Court in San Francisco by the

ACLU-NC, the Lawyers' Committee for

Civil Rights and the law firm of Heller,

Ehrman, White and McAuliffe, charges that

the Hillsdale Shopping Center in San

Mateo detained several Latino teenagers,

and then ejected them from the mall,

solely because they were all wearing an

article of black clothing and were sus-

pected of being members of a gang. The

case, Claire v. Bohannon Development

Company, charges that the shopping cen-

ter's use of a stereotyped "gang profile"

based on race, age, gender and appearance

unfairly discriminates against minority

youth, and violates state and federal civil

rights laws.

The suit also names the San Mateo

Police Department as a defendant because,

the suit alleges, the San Mateo Police

Department's gang unit encouraged and

assisted the shopping center management

ing recent court decisions.

ATTENTION STUDENTS!

We Have Rights Too...But

What Are They?

A dazzling updated version of the popular

ACLU-NC publication on the rights of students

and youth is now available. This easy-to-read 6-

page tabloid, written in question-and-answer

format, has sections on commonly asked ques-

tions about school censorship, locker searches,

student clubs, discrimination, military recruit-

ment and other issues facing today's youth.

The updated version includes new informa-

tion on the expansion of freedom of expression

in school baged on the newly enacted Leonard

bill and on reproductive rights for teens follow-

More than 20,000 copies of this popular

publication have already been distributed to

high school students throughout California.

Individual orders are free; bulk orders are 10

copies for $2.00 to cover postage and handling.

_ Order your copy today!

Jason Ramirez Claire, 15, told a crowded press conference how he and his friends

were ejected from Hillsdale Mall in San Mateo because the security guard accused

them of being gang members.

in creating and enforcing a "gang profile"

policy whereby individuals are singled out

based on attire, race, age, gender appear-

ance and/or national origin - not on the

basis of individual wrongful conduct.

"None of these kids are gang mem-

bers," explained plaintiffs' attorney

Richard Abramson, a partner in Heller,

Nancy Otto

Ehrman's Palo Alto office, "nor were they

bothering anyone at the mall or disturbing

the business of any of the shops. They

were kicked out because of the mall's dis-

criminatory determination that any young

Latino man who wears black must be a

gang member."

At a joint press conference, attorneys

A GUIDE TO SOME OF

OST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS THAT STUDEN

a, HAVE ABOUT THEIR CIVIL LEBERTIES

NOISSaHyendX3a 41O WOGZI3AY4

Please make check out to ACLU-NC and send to

ACLU-NC, Publications Department

1663 Mission Street, #460

San Francisco, CA 94103.

announced two other lawsuits resulting

from the use of gang profiles at northern

California shopping centers. Sacramento

attorney Othello H. Curry filed suit on

May 5 in federal court on behalf of a 19-

year-old African American man who was

arrested at the Sunrise Mall in Citrus

Heights because his pants were too baggy.

Last November, attorneys Barbara Cohen

and Kerry M. Gough of the Oakland firm

Gough and Cohen filed suit on behalf of

_ three young men of African-American and

Polynesian descent who were ejected from

the Newpark Mall in Newark because they

all were wearing brown denim jackets.

"These are not isolated incidents,"

explained ACLU-NC staff attorney Ed

Chen, who along with Sara Campos of the

Lawyers' Committee is participating in the

suit against the Hillsdale Shopping Center.

"We believe security guards at shopping

malls, amusement parks and other public

places are being trained to discriminate

against minority youth because of the

color of their skin, and the style and color

of their clothing. The use of these so-

called gang profiles deprives minority

youth of their civil rights."

Black clothing

Last November, Jason Ramirez Claire,

Alejandro Villanueva and Daniel Infante

were walking through Hillsdale Shopping

Center, where they were planning to pur-

chase a few items as well as something to

drink. Two security guards stopped them,

and asked them where they lived and why

they each had on a piece of black clothing.

When told the young men lived in

Redwood City, the guards replied that

there were a lot of gangs in Redwood City,

and that black was a gang-related color.

After questioning the group, the guards

ordered them to leave the mall.

"These kids came to the mall to shop,

which the last time I looked isn't against

the law," noted attorney Abramson.

`Hundreds of thousands of kids visit malls

every day. But because these particular

kids were Latino, and were wearing an

article of black clothing, they were auto-

matically suspect. I seriously doubt that

white kids wearing the same clothing

would have been treated this way."

The suit asks for monetary damages on

behalf of Claire, Villanueva and Infante, as

well as for Damian Pinzon, who was

harassed at the same shopping center in

June 1992. A security guard accosted

Pinzon as he sat on a bench, and asked him

whether he belonged to a gang. After

Pinzon explained that he did not, he turned

to resume shoe shopping. The guard spun

Pinzon around, tearing his shirt in the pro-

cess. The guard told Pinzon to either buy

shoes or leave.

In addition to damages, the suit asks

for an injunction prohibiting the shopping

center from using "gang profiles" or carry-

ing out other policies that discriminate

against individuals on the basis of their

appearance rather than their actions.

Baggy pants

On September 18, 1992, Dante Tobias

stood in the Sunrise Mall in Citrus Heights

chatting with a female friend and her two-

year-old baby. An off-duty Sacramento

County Sheriff's Deputy, moonlighting as

a security officer at the mall, approached

Tobias and ordered him to pull up his

pants, because he was violating the mall

dress code.

"T thought he was joking - baggy

pants are a popular style that they sell in

stores in this mall," said Tobias.

But the officer handcuffed Tobias, and

frisked him in a small room in Weinstock's

Department Store. He was then arrested,

and taken down to the police station,

where he was strip-searched and detained

for four to five hours in a holding cell.

"The California Supreme Court

Continued on page 10

:

ee POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY

ACT IVIST CONFERENC=

UNIVERSITY F CcCALI`F ORNIA T S AN TA c RUZ

F R IDA Y J U LL Y I 6

3:00-5:30 Registration

3:30-6:30 Dinner

7:00-8:30 Opening Plenary: THE CONSTITUTIONAL TOLL OF THE RAGING WARS AGAINST

CRIME and GANGS

Welcome by Milton Estes, M.D., Chair, ACLU-NC Board of Directors

Keynote Speaker: Elliott Currie, Lecturer in Legal Studies, UC Berkeley;

Author, Confronting Crime and Reckoning

8:30 -- 10:00 Santa Cruz Chapter Reception

S A F U R DAY J U LE Y I 7

7:30-8:30 Breakfast

9:00 - 10:00 Plenary Il: DISCRIMINATION and BIAS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES

10:15- 11:30 Workshops

A. Confronting Police Harassment of Lesbians and Gay Men ~ ,

B. Building Awareness of How Border Patrol-Raids and INS Sweeps Affect Our Communities

C. From Panhandling to Blocking Sidewalks: Homelessness is NOT a Crime

D. Police Response to Violence Against Women

E.. Police Racism: The Impact on Communities of Color

1:45-1:30 Lunch

1:30-2:30 Plenary II]: THE PUSH FOR CIVILIAN REVIEW: A REGIONAL UPDATE

ACLU-NC Police Practices Project Director John Crew and Activists from Marina, Monterey, Salinas, Seaside,

_Experiences :

a: Constructing Brdad- Based Community Supp

Barriers to Accountability

ies in Schools

11:30 -

12:00 -

Breaking The Silence Design: Michael Cox

1:00 - 3:00"

Ss P E A K E R 8 (Partial List)

Jacqueline Agtuca, Attorney; Senior Program Specialist, Family Violence Prevention Fund; Member, Asian Women's Shelter Board of Directors

Barbara Attard, Senior Investigator, Office of Citizen Complaints, San Francisco

Ann Brick, Staff Attorney, ACLU-NC

Ed Chen, Staff Attorney, ACLU-NC

Diane Chin, Director, Racial Violence Project, The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area

John Crew, Director, ACLU-NC Police Practices Project

Elliott Currie, Lecturer in Legal Studies, UC Berkeley; Author, Confronting Crime and Reckoning

Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director, ACLU-NC

Elaine Elinson, Director, ACLU-NC Public Education

Eleanor Eisenberg, Co-Chair, 1993 Activist Conference Dlncige Committee; ACLU-NC Representative, Santa Cruz Chapter Board

Milton Estes, M.D., Chair, ACLU-NC Board of Directors

Marcia Gallo, Doe ACLU-NC Howard A. Friedman First Amendment Education Project

Louis Gonzales, Chair, Stockton Human Rights Task Force

Blair Griffith, Attorney

Jeff Hooper, Member, ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Chapter Board

Simba Kenyatta, Chair, ACLU Santa Cruz Chapter Board

John Laird, Former Mayor of Santa Cruz; Executive Director, Santa Cruz AIDS Project

Sara Lively, Executive Director, Women's Crisis Support and Shelter Services, Santa Cruz County

Ruth Lepez, Rural Health Director, San Benito Health Foundation

Guillermo Pefia, Program Director, Community United Against Violence

Alfreda Davis Porter, Director, Office of Citizen Complaints, San Francisco

Osear Rios, Mayor, Watsonville

Helen Rucker, Member, Seaside City Council

Paula Samarron, Attorney; Member, ACLU Santa Cruz Chapter Board

Alan Schlosser, Managing Attorney, ACLU-NC

Dan Silva, Ex-Chief Investigator, Office of Citizen Complaints, San Francisco

Robert E. Taren, Attorney; Member, ACLU Santa Cruz Chapter Board

Dania Torres Wong, Attorney, California Rural Legal Assistance (for identification purposes only)

Alex Vitale, Staff, Coalition on Homelessness

Villy Wang, ACLU-NC Representative, San Francisco Chapter

Michelle Welsh, Chair, ACLU-NC Field Committee; ACLU-NC Representative, Monterey Chapter Board

Catherine Wiehe, Attorney; Teacher, San Jose High Academy; Member, ACLU Santa Clara Chapter Board

Donna Yamashiro, Staff Attorney, Asian Law Alliance; Member, ACLU-NC Board of Directors

R EGi#tgdtses F RAT IT ON

This year's Activist Conference will be held at the University of California, Santa Cruz.

Registration includes admission to all conference sessions and conference materials.

Before June 18: 55.00 (This price does NOT include lodging and meals; see below)

After J une 18 and day of Conference: 65.00 (This price does NOT include lodging and meals; see below)

L O D GG IN G and ME AL S S (These prices do NOT include registration)

(These prices do NOT include registration)

Two nights, six meals: Single: *160.00 (limited number available); Double: *130.00

Meals only: *4.0.00 (Friday dinner, Saturday lunch and dinner, Sunday lunch)

The UC Santa Cruz campus is wheelchair accessible. Childcare will be provided during the Conference sessions.

ASL interpretation will also be provided. A limited number of partial or full scholarships are available.

Please contact Nancy Otto at 415-621-2493.

SIGN ME UP FOR THE 1993 ACLU-NC@ AcTIVIST CONFERENCE AT UC SANTA CRUZ

Name

Address

" City/State/Zip Phone (Day) Phone (Eve)

Registration Ge L] Will you need child care? If yes, number and ages of children: ...........................

Single occupancy We (ae

. Uoubleoccupancy $0222... 20 2 ee

Meals only $e -"`"`"`"`" eC} hU6hUlhUDUhUDLUhUhULUDDUD!UhUULU8Uhm...LULU

TOTALENCLOSED $2 . (Will you need ASL interpretation?

CJ Do you have special housing needs?

Please make your check payable to ACLU-NC Activist Conference and return to: ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San Francisco, CA 94103

Space is limited. Please register as soon as possible, but not later than July 2 if you want to reserve meals and/or lodging.

8 aclu news

may - jun 1993

Bill to Bar Execution of Mentally Retarded

t a press conference on March 4 in

AK State Capitol, death penalty

opponent Assembly Member Phillip

Isenberg (D-Sacramento) and Senator

Frank Hill (R-Whittier), a staunch sup-

porter of capital punishment, announced

the introduction of a bill (AB 1455) to pro-

hibit the execution of mentally retarded

persons.

The state legislators were joined by "

representatives of the Association of

Retarded Citizens (ARC), the sponsor of

the measure, and representatives of the

California Psychiatric Association,

California Psychological Association and a

number of religious organizations.

"Tt is my hope that this bill will bridge

the gap between proponents and opponents

of the death penalty," said Isenberg. "Even

the most fervent death penalty supporters

pause when asked if they support execu-

tion of mentally retarded persons." This

was certainly true in 1988 when Congress

passed this measure as part of the Omnibus

Drug Bill (HR 5210) with no opposition.

That law, however, only affects those sen-

tenced for drug offenses.

On April 20, AB 1455 passed its first

"Even the most fervent death penalty

supporters pause when asked if they

support execution of mentally retarded

persons."

- Assemblyman Phillip Isenberg

hurdle by being approved in the Assembly

Public Safety Committee after a long and

heated debate where Attorney General

Dan Lungren testified against it. It is now

headed to the full Assembly for discussion

and vote.

Currently six states - Arkansas,

Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee

and New Mexico - have passed similar

laws. Fourteen states (including New

York, Massachusetts and Michigan) do

not have a death penalty.

"Other states have managed to forge a

consensus on this difficult and emotional

issue," said Isenberg. "I am confident that

the citizens of California can put aside

Restrictions on Prison

Visitor Searches

Modified

he California Court of Appeal

: upheld major restrictions on park-

ing lot searches of prison visitors,

while modifying other search guidelines

imposed in 1989 by a Superior Court

judge in response to an ACLU-NC law-

suit. On March 23, 1993, a three-judge

panel of the First District Court of Appeal

ruled in Estes v. Rowland that prison

guards must limit searches to 10 minutes

in most circumstances and may never

exceed 30 minutes, must keep all guard

dogs at least 20 feet away from visitors,

and must give explicit notice of the search

and the opportunity to leave prior to sub-

jecting any visitor to the search.

"Although this was not a complete vic-

tory, it remains an important one for indi-

viduals who visit friends and relatives in

California prisons," said ACLU-NC staff

attorney Alan Schlosser. "Corrections offi-

cials may no longer use drug-sniffing dogs

as instruments of intimidation, and may

not subject visitors to the lengthy, humili-

ating and unjustified searches that were

routine before this ruling." :

`The ACLU-NC, the Prison Law Office,

and cooperating attorneys from Heller,

Ehrman, White and McAuliffe brought suit

in 1986 on behalf of six people who visit

relatives in California prisons, an inmate

and two taxpayers. In 1989, Marin County

Superior Court Judge Richard H. Breiner

issued a sweeping injunction prohibiting

the types of abuses detailed in the suit, as

well as strict limitations on prison search

procedures.

The Court of Appeal ruling, which

came in response to an appeal from the

California Department of Corrections,

upheld the Superior Court's orders requir-

ing notification of searches, restrictions on

local law enforcement participation and

greater limitation on strip searches, in

addition to the limits imposed on the

length of searches and use of dogs. The

court loosened restrictions imposed on the

types of searches in response to a dog

alert, and gave prison officials power to

deny visitation rights to individuals found

with contraband.

Attorneys from Heller, Ehrman, White

their differences on the death penalty for a

moment and agree on this bill."

The bill contains the following provi-

sions:

e Mentally retarded persons who are

convicted of a capital crime and not exe-

cuted shall be sentenced to life in prison

without the possibility of parole;

e the defendant must prove mental

retardation at the time of commission of

the crime;

0x00B0 persons with an IQ of 70 or less are

presumed to be mentally retarded (such

persons never possess a mental age of

more than 12-13);

e the bill applies prospectively only;

no one currently on Death Row shall have

his or her sentence commuted.

In 1991, President Bush's Committee

on Mental Retardation issued a report

"Citizens with Mental Retardation and the

Criminal Justice System,' which recom-

mended that mentally retarded persons not

be executed.

If the bill is approved by the

Legislature, it will then be placed on a

statewide ballot. Because the bill amends

the death penalty initiative, it must also be

approved by the voters.

In every state including California

where a public opinion poll was conducted

on the issue, 60-79% of the people were in

favor of such an exemption for the men-

tally retarded.

"This is a vital effort that has been sup-

ported by the federal government and by

six other states,' said ACLU-NC

Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich. "It is

significant that it has been proposed by a

proponent and an opponent of capital pun-

ishment because it presents an important

opportunity to pass this necessary legisla-

tion."

New Verdicts...

Continued from page 1

mendations to protect people's freedom of

expression. The report was never responded

to by the Mayor or any city official.

"Given the events of last year, and the

City's lack of self-criticism over its harsh-

est measures, city officials have an urgent

obligation to dispel the chill cast over the

First Amendment by its actions in 1992.

and to provide assurances that people can

exercise their free speech rights without

fear of reprisal or retaliation," the ACLU-

NC letter said.

Federal prosecution

On the day of the verdict, the ACLU

of Southern California issued a statement

by Executive Director Ramona Ripston

and Legal Director Paul Hoffman stating,

McAuliffe, led by cooperating attorney

Richard Goff, spent more than six years

working on the case. In addition, the San

Francisco law firm donated more than $1

million in court-awarded attorneys' fees to

the ACLU-NC and the Prison Law Office.

"The firm's generous donation follows

many years of skilled litigation," said

Executive Director Dorothy Ehrlich. "The

donation is a testament to its commitment

to civil liberties and community service,

and we are extremely grateful."

"We believe the verdict is a just one. The

real winners are the legal system and the

people of Los Angeles. We are proud to

have been among the first to call for a fed-

eral civil rights prosecution, and we con-

gratulate the prosecutors on the result.

"There has never been. any question

that excessive force was used in the arrest

of Rodney King and that his civil nights

were violated the night he was beaten by

~ officers in the Los Angeles Police Depart-

ment," Ripston and Hoffman said.

The national ACLU Board of Directors,

at its April 4 meeting, reaffirmed its policy

on double jeopardy, allowing for no excep-

tions to the double jeopardy clause, includ-

ing for law enforcement officials.

Following that vote, the ACLU-SC issued

a statement saying that it "believes the

U.S. Department of Justice should be able

to bring federal civil rights prosecutions

after state court acquittals, to ensure that

constitutional rights are vindicated under

our federal civil rights laws.

"The ACLU of Southern California's

departure from the National ACLU Board

on this issue is a good faith disagreement

between the National and an affiliate of a

sort that helps keep the ACLU strong."

The ACLU of Northern California.

Board has taken no formal position on this

question. At its April meeting, Board

Chair Milton Estes appointed an ad hoc

committee to study the controversy and to

develop a position for the affiliate.

ACLU-NC Challenges Arbitrary Use of

`Nuisance Law' to Arrest Women in S.F.

Tenderloin

By Jean Field

: : he ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief

in the case of People v. Clisbee,

challenging the San _ Francisco

Police Department's use of the California

nuisance law to arrest women suspected of

prostitution.

San Francisco police officers arrested

Debbie Clisbee, along with five other

women, for standing on the sidewalk in

the Tenderloin district and gesturing to

passing drivers. The police claimed that

the women constituted an unlawful

obstruction, and thus a nuisance. The

Public Defender's Office challenged the

constitutionality of the arrests, claiming

that the obstruction language of the nui-

sance law was impermissibly vague and

infringed on First Amendment rights.

In a July 31, 1992 ruling, Municipal

Court Judge Herbert Donaldson dismissed

the case against the women. "Section 372

of the Penal Code in this Court's judg-

ment ... is vague. It is being applied in a

discriminatory manner (as a way to round

up prostitutes). It gives the officers too

much discretion, which they use to arrest

women who appear to them to be prosti-

tutes." :

When the District Attorney appealed

the decision, the ACLU-NC filed an ami-

cus brief on. March 22 in the appellate

department of San Francisco Superior

Court supporting the Public Defender's

efforts to challenge the law. The brief was

authored by ACLU-NC cooperating attor-

neys Jamin Hawks, Kathleen Wardlaw,

and Sheryl Wilkins of Landels, Ripley and

Diamond and ACLU-NC staff attorney

Margaret Crosby.

"The public nuisance law was never

intended to criminalize people's basic

movement, speech or assembly in public,"

- explained Hawks.

"The San Francisco Police Depart-

ment's policy of arresting women under

the nuisance law rather than charging a

violation of the state law expressly

designed to reach prostitution is an abuse

of California's nuisance statute," she added.

The ACLU argues that the behavior for

which the women were arrested was indis-

tinguishable from daily urban activities,

such as people hailing taxis, pollsters stop-

ping pedestrians and vendors selling flow-

ers. Thus, the term obstruction is unconsti-

tutionally vague and gives the police a

dangerously flexible tool to sweep the

streets of people they deem undesirable.

aclu news 9

may - jun 1993

Accent Discrimination...

Continued from page I

In December 1991, AMPB_ perma-

nently assigned the five plaintiffs to work

swing, graveyard and weekend shifts at

the San Efancisco offices "of the

Department of the Treasury.

In February 1992, following an unsub-

stantiated complaint from a Treasury offi-

cial about an incident in which he had

trouble communicating with an unnamed

security guard at the building, all five men

were removed from their posts.

"The men were highly qualified for the

jobs," explained ACLU-NC attorney Ed

Chen. "Most had extensive security expe-

rience and two had long records of mili-

tary training and service. All but one had

received college education in_ the

Philippines, where the language of instruc-

tion is English. No one had ever com-

plained about any of their performances as

security guards, nor had anyone made

unfavorable comments about their English

proficiency," he added.

By removing all five of the Filipino

guards, AMPB took out all of the Filipino-

American guards at the Treasury office.

They were replaced with non-Filipino

guards who were less qualified. Their

removal from their posts at the Treasury

resulted in their losing 8 to 40 work hours

per week. Estrada was denied any replace-

ment working hours, and the other plain-

tiffs were reassigned to other locations

where their working hours, and hence

wages, were substantially diminished.

"I suffered great anguish and profound

feelings of humiliation and shame because

they said I was removed because I could

not speak English," said Loyola. "I also

suffer emotional pain because I am unable

to support my family, or my nephews back

home in the Philippines who depend on me

for their tuition."

"Their removal was unwarranted," said

ELC attorney Christopher Ho. "Each was

and is sufficiently fluent and comprehensi-

ble in English to satisfactorily perform his

job at his assigned post. Their removal was

unlawfully based on their accent, race and

national origin - not on their ability to

perform their jobs."

In April 1992, the ALC filed charges

on behalf of the men with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission

alleging discrimination. Following the fil-

ing of the complaint, they became the sub-

ject of intense harassment from GSA and

Security guard Perfecto Estrada explains to the press that he was unjustly removed

from his Department of Treasury posting for `accent discrimination."

Union Maid Photos

Springtime in Sacramento

Anti-Immigrant Bills

and Forfeiture Laws

By Francis Lobaco

Legislative Advocate

he Capitol grounds look beautiful

; this spring. The azaleas are in full

. bloom and the temperature is just

right for a stroll. Unfortunately, our job is

inside the Capitol.

With the economy's continuing slide

and the third straight year of more than a .

billion-dollar deficit, the state faces

another terrible budget year. Basic govern-

ment services, which have already suf-

fered drastic cutbacks, will be slashed

even more this year. Those budget con-

cerns form the backdrop for two different

areas of legislation threatening civil liber-

ties: anti-immigrant bills and asset forfei-

ture laws.

This year marks an unprecedented leg-

islative attack on the immigrant popula-

tion. More than 20 anti-immigrant bills

have been introduced, most of which seek

to deny undocumented immigrants basic

access to education, emergency health

care, public housing and other public ser-

vices.

Blaming immigrants

While legislators and anti-immigrant

groups unjustifiably blame the state's doc-

umented and undocumented immigrant

population for much of our budget prob-

lemiss the facts are ven ditierent:

Immigrants come to this state to work and

otherwise contribute to this state's econ-

omy and infrastructure. They pay more in

taxes than they receive in governmental

services. What drives many of the propo-

nents of these bills is plain old racism and

thinly veiled xenophobia.

AB 149 (Mountjoy-R, Arcadia)

would prohibit the use of any funds for the

education of undocumented students. At

the recent hearing, most of the proponents

of this bill couched their testimony on

purely economic grounds. However, a few

were more blunt. One anti-immigrant

organization's spokesperson indicated that

This year marks an

unprecedented

legislative attack on

the immigrant

population. More than

20 anti-immigrant bills

have been introduced,

most of which seek to

deny undocumented

immigrants basic

access to education,

emergency health care,

public housing and

other public services.

the bill should become law in order to stop

Third World children from bringing their

culture and crime to California. The

ACLU strongly opposed this bill not only

because it is unconstitutional to deny chil-

dren an education because of their legal

status, but also because lack of an educa-

tion only ensures an increase in poverty

and marginalization of immigrants. The

bill was soundly defeated in the Assembly

Education Committee.

Other bills in the anti-immigrant pack-

age include: AB 150 (Mountjoy), which

prohibits Medi-Cal reimbursement of state

funds for emergency or pregnancy related

services provided to undocumented

patients unless the Medi-Cal provider

reports his or her patient to the INS; AB

299 (Hoge-R, Pasadena), which requires

housing providers to determine a person's

eligibility for housing programs based on

proof of citizenship or legal status; SB 691

(Kopp-I, South San Francisco), which

prohibits local sanctuary ordinances that

seek to prohibit cooperation between local

officers and the INS; and AB 983 (Allen-

R, Cypress), AB 2171 (Mountjoy) and

SB 976 (Alquist-D, San Jose), all of

which prohibit the Department of Motor

Vehicles from issuing or renewing drivers'

licenses to persons who cannot establish

proof of citizenship or legal status.

The ACLU has been at the forefront of

opposition to these bills. The "New

California Coalition," comprised of immi-

grant advocates, civil rights organizations

and others, recently has organized to

defeat these bills. We expect that most

will not pass the Legislature.

Asset Forfeiture

As the deficit goes higher and funds

become more scarce, law enforcement

agencies are increasing their reliance on

drug forfeiture laws as a way to supple-

ment their budgets. Existing statutes allow

law enforcement agencies to keep the

money they generate from forfeiture. In

the past four years, the agencies have

obtained more than $130 million dollars

from forfeited assets. This notion of

enforcing criminal laws for profit has been

greatly abused, and can be deadly.

In an incident last year in Malibu, mil-

lionaire-rancher Donald Scott was killed

when state and federal law enforcement

officials stormed onto his 200-acre ranch

to search for marijuana. No marijuana was

found, and Scott lost his life at the hands

of law enforcement officers. Recent news

reports indicate that the basis upon which

the search warrant was obtained was erro- -

neous, and that law enforcement officials

apparently lied about the existence of mar-

ijuana in order to obtain the search warrant

- and the chance to seize his property.

Ventura County Sheriff Michael Bradbury

wrote in his investigation of the incident,

"This search warrant became Donald

Scott's death warrant." This unfortunate

incident as well as others have brought the

asset forfeiture laws under close scrutiny.

The ACLU has, of course, strongly

opposed. drug forfeiture laws. Under these

laws persons can lose their property even

if they are not charged with a crime, let

alone found innocent of any wrongdoing.

Scheduled to expire this year,

AMPB. officials including threats that they

would lose their jobs if they did not with-

draw the EEOC complaint, abusive lan-

guage' and cursing, and _- unfair

disqualification on performance tests.

The five security guards also filed a

civil rights lawsuit in U.S. District Court.

The suit, Ramirez v. AMPB, charges that

their employer American Mutual

Protective Bureau, the U.S. General

Services Administration, and certain fed-

eral officials discriminated against them on

the basis of their national origin in viola-

tion of state anti-discrimination laws and

the federal Constitution. With the findings

issued by the EEOC, the plaintiffs will add

their Title VII charges to the federal law-

suit. The EEOC is requesting that the com-

pany engage in settlement discussions.

The suit is seeking an injunction order-

ing AMPB and the GSA to reinstate the

five men as security guards at the

Department of Treasury with retroactive

seniority; back pay; and expungement of

their personnel records of all adverse refer-

ences from these events and damages. In

addition, the suit is asking for an injunction

to prevent such discrimination in the

future.

Welfare ...

Continued from page 1

core of California's anti-SLAPP suit legis-

lation," Burk added.

The new law describes SLAPP suits as

an "abuse of the judicial process," and

requires that the plaintiff in such an action

establish a probability of success on the

merits early in the case. If that standard is

not met, the court must grant a special

motion to strike, and dismiss the case.

In this case, Judge McCabe did not

address the defendants' motion under the

new legislation, choosing instead to grant

summary judgment on the merits.

GAAP Board member Velson said,

"From our perspective, Mr. Tepper's

action was clearly in violation of DSS pol-

icy and of state law. He was then disci-

plined by the Department. His action had

disastrous consequences. for the GAAP

client involved, and had a chilling effect on

other GAAP clients who were afraid to

come to the GAAP office or contact us for

desperately needed services. The response

to Mr. Tepper's action was the appropri-

ately emotional and angry response of a

community of advocates who represent

one of the most marginalized groups in our

society.

"This lawsuit is about the right to make

such a response, a right firmly grounded in

the First Amendment," Velson added.

ACLU-NC attorney Crosby noted that

the two epithets which formed the sole -

basis of the plaintiff's libel claim

("criminal" and "Hitler of the GA depart-

ment") are constitutionally protected.

"Rhetorical hyperbole is a traditional part

of American political dialogue. Courts

throughout the country have ruled that libel

suits may not be based on the colorful epi-

thets that Americans use to describe their

public officials," Crosby added.

California's asset forfeiture law is up for

renewal in the Legislature. On one side is

SB 1158 (Maddy-R, Fresno), Attorney

General Dan Lungren's version, which

expands current law and patterns state for-

feiture after federal laws that require no

threshold amounts of any drugs - includ-

ing marijuana - in order to seize prop-

erty.

On the other side is Assemblymember

John Burton's proposal, which could help

prevent incidents like the Scott killing. AB

114 (Burton-D, San Francisco) requires

no forfeiture proceedings until there has

been a criminal conviction for drug sales.

AB 114 also routes the money seized from

forfeiture proceedings into the general

fund so that the state - and not local law

enforcement agencies - could determine

where the proceeds should be spent.

The legislative fight will be over which

bill, and in what form, makes it to the

Governor's desk.