* This message forwarded from area 76, Civil Liberty Echo
  * Original message dated 30 Apr 97  03:43:55, from Christopher Baker 
 
 Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 11:03:29 GMT
From: ACLU Newsfeed Owner 
To: news@aclu.org
Subject: ACLU News 04-28-97: No-Knock, Your Rights, And More
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
04-28-97
ACLU Newsfeed -- ACLU News Direct to YOU
----------------------------------------------------------------
TODAY'S NEWS:
Sender: owner-news@aclu.org
Precedence: bulk
 
* Supreme Court Limits No-Knock Drug Searches; Another Decision
   Undermines Democratic System
 
* Stopped by the Cops and Don't Know Your Rights?: Whip Out the ACLU's
   Wallet-Size "Bust Cards," Now Available to Everyone Via the
   Internet
 
* Judge Limits Michigan Abortion Ban
 
* Will NY Law Reduce Internet to "Sandbox Level"?
 
* City Panel Cites Univ. of Pittsburgh For Discrimination Against
   Lesbian
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court Limits No-Knock Drug Searches;
Another Decision Undermines Democratic System
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, April 28, 1997
 
WASHINGTON -- In a unanimous vote, the United States Supreme Court
today refused to create a blanket exception for police officers
searching for drugs to enter homes without knocking and announcing
themselves.
 
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a friend-of-the-court
brief in the case, said the ruling affirms the Constitution's Fourth
Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
 
"Today's ruling represents an important statement by the Court that
the war on drugs does not permit the police to suspend the
Constitution," said Steven R. Shapiro, the National ACLU's Legal
Director. "It enables the police to enforce the laws while preserving
the important privacy rights embodied in the Fourth Amendment."
 
"Ultimately, however, the significance of the ruling will depend on
the willingness of the courts to scrutinize police claims that no-
knock searches are necessary in particular cases," Shapiro added.
 
The decision, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, rejected the
Wisconsin Supreme Court's view that the police are never required to
knock and announce their presence in felony drug cases.   Law
enforcement officials in Wisconsin had urged the justices to affirm
that ruling and adopt a blanket exception to the "knock and announce"
rule for drug searches.
 
That ruling was challenged by Steiney Richards, who was convicted on
cocaine-related charges after an unannounced raid on his motel room in
Madison.   The case is
Richards v.
Wisconsin, 96-5955.
 
In other action today, the U.S. Supreme Court today upheld 6-to-3 a
Minnesota law barring any candidate representing a major political
party from also appearing on a general election ballot as the nominee
of a minor party.
 
The ACLU, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case, said
the ruling was extremely disappointing.
 
"The majority opinion understates the value of third parties and
overstates the importance of preserving the two-party system at all
costs," said Shapiro.  "The First Amendment was intended to protect
the marketplace of ideas, not to protect the market share of the
political establishment."
 
The ruling overturns a federal appeals court which had struck down the
Minnesota law as unconstitutional, saying the measure violates the
freedom of association of minor political parties.
 
The law was challenged in 1994 by the Twin Cities Area New Party, a
minor political party that sought to place Andy Dawkins on the ballot
as their nominee for the state House of Representatives.  Dawkins was
already on the ballot as the candidate for the Democratic-Farmer-Labor
Party, a major party.
 
The case is
McKenna v.
Twin Cities Area New Party, 95-1608.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stopped by the Cops and Don't Know Your Rights?
 
Whip Out the ACLU's Wallet-Size "Bust Cards,"
Now Available to Everyone Via the Internet
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, April 25, 1997
 
NEW YORK -- When can the police enter your home without a search
warrant?
 
Can the police stop your car and peek into the glove compartment?
What are your rights when you are arrested and taken to a police
station?  How should you handle the police when stopped?
 
As part of its continuing mission to educate the public on their
rights, the American Civil Liberties Union has created a "bust card"
to inform citizens about what to do (or say) when confronted by the
police.
 
The wallet-sized card, which anyone can download free of charge from
the ACLU's website (www.aclu.org),
is an abbreviated manual of what every citizen should know in case
they are stopped by the police for questioning, pulled over by the
road, searched, or arrested.
 
The recommendations range from useful reminders ("Write down
everything you remember") to lesser-known, but important rules ("You
can't legally be arrested for refusing to identify yourself to a
police officer").  The card will be accompanied by a special online
collection on police practices that will highlight ACLU cases on
police brutality, government statistics, and links to other resources.
 
A similar card was widely distributed by the ACLU in California,
especially after the Rodney King riots which marks a fifth anniversary
later this month.  (One card-holder there reported that he pulled out
his card when confronted by a police officer, only to have the officer
reach into his wallet and pull out a copy of his own!)
 
"Everyone benefits from learning their rights," said Ira Glasser, the
ACLU's executive director. "Problems with the police often arise when
there is confusion on either side.  If we don't understand our own
rights and responsibilities, then our relationship with the police
becomes a one-way street."
 
To download a copy of the "bust card," simply point your web browser
to the ACLU's website (www.aclu.org)
and click on the virtual card.  After the image file is downloaded,
just print the file on paper, cut and fold, and stick in your wallet,
purse or glove compartment.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Limits Michigan Abortion Ban
 
DETROIT -- Michigan physicians who perform common second-trimester
abortions won't be prosecuted under a new ban on so-called "partial-
birth abortions," reports the Detroit News.
 
U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen issued an order late Wednesday that
temporarily lifted part of the statewide ban that took effect March
31. His decision came after state Attorney General Frank Kelley
refused to provide clear guidelines on what types of abortion
procedures would be prosecuted under the new law, the paper reports.
 
But Rosen, the paper added, said the state can still prosecute doctors
who intentionally perform the procedure known as "intact dilation and
extraction," at least until he makes a final determination on the
law's constitutionality.
 
The ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project and the Center for
Reproductive Law and Policy challenged the new law, arguing that the
ban was so broad that it prohibited almost all types of abortion
performed after the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
 
"Michigan doctors can now breathe a sigh of relief," said Louise
Melling, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom
Project, who is the lead attorney on the case.
 
"With this order, they know they can continue to preform the most
common methods of second-trimester abortions without fear of losing
their license or being prosecuted," she added.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Will NY Law Reduce Internet to "Sandbox Level"?
 
NEW YORK -- In oral argument before a federal district judge this
week, ACLU attorney Ann Beeson said that New York's Internet
censorship law violates the First Amendment because it would
unconstitutionally reduce all speech on the Internet to a level
suitable for a six-year-old, The New York Times reports.
 
Beeson also said that the law violates the Constitution's Commerce
Clause because it would criminalize online conversations that occur
entirely outside the state's borders.
 
According to CyberTimes, The New York Times' online publication, Judge
Loretta A. Preska posed numerous questions to the lawyers, often
asking the plaintiff and defendant lawyers to respond to statements by
the opposing side.
 
During the 90-minute exchange, the ACLU's Beeson told the court that
Internet users, like chat room participants or those who post messages
to e-mail lists, often have no way of knowing who will read what they
write.  Therefore, she said, even people outside of New York
communicating with a global audience would have to censor themselves
for fear that even a single reader might be a minor from New York.
This, she said, is an impermissible burden imposed by the state on
those outside its borders.
 
Beeson said she believed that the law, as presently worded, could
criminalize online conversations like a chatroom discussion of gay
issues if a 16-year-old were a participant in the discussion.
 
Government lawyer James Hershler dismissed these fears, saying that
the conversation would be illegal only if a participant forwarded
sexually explicit images to the minor.  "That would be a rare
instance, indeed," he said.
 
But Judge Preska insisted on knowing why Hershler thought speech would
only "rarely" be stifled by the law. Alluding to the so-called
"chilling effect" of laws that promote self-censorship out of fear of
prosecution, Preska returned to Beeson's example.  "What's the adult's
choice?  Either make the communication, or not make the communication
and remain, if you will, at the sandbox level.  Is that not a chill?"
 
"There are circumstances where an individual may be chilled," Hershler
conceded,  "but in most circumstances it is someone who may commit a
crime."
 
Expressing surprise, Judge Preska asked, "What is the basis for that?"
adding that she "could not make a finding" that this statement was
true based on the record the government had presented to the court.
Hershler, lacking an answer, moved on to other matters.
 
The argument on Tuesday wrapped up courtroom proceedings in ALA v.
Pataki, the ACLU's challenge to New York's Internet censorship statute
filed on behalf of the ACLU, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the
American Library Association and others.  During courtroom testimony
earlier this month, witnesses testifying to the law's chilling effect
included a librarian, an artist, the moderator of a gay online forum,
and an ACLU official.  The groups now await a ruling in the case.
----------------------------------------------------------------
City Panel Cites Univ. of Pittsburgh For Discrimination Against
Lesbian
 
PITTSBURGH - A city panel has found probable cause that the University
of Pittsburgh discriminated against a former faculty member by
refusing to extend health care coverage to her lesbian partner, the
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports.
 
The ACLU of Pittsburgh had filed a complaint against the university on
behalf of Deborah Henson in January 1996, saying the university's
policy violated a city ordinance banning discrimination based on
sexual orientation.
 
Staff of the City's Human Relations Commission has concluded, the
Post-Gazette said, that the policy has "resulted in disparate
treatment [for homosexual employees] in comparison to heterosexual
employees."
 
The Post-Gazette said that the finding means that the case will
proceed to a private settlement conference between the parties. If no
settlement is reached, the commission will schedule a public hearing
on the complaint.
 
ACLU cooperating attorney Christine Biancheria told the paper that the
finding is "a very hopeful signal about the eventual outcome of the
case.''
 
"I hope the finding sends a sign to the university trustees that the
effort to curry financial favor from homophobes does not constitute an
exception to discrimination laws," Biancheria said.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Freedom Network Web Page:  http://www.aclu.org.
America Online users should check out our live chats, auditorium
events, *very* active message boards, and complete news on civil
liberties, at keyword ACLU.
 
----------------------------------------------------------------
ACLU Newsfeed
American Civil Liberties Union National Office
132 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
 
To subscribe to the ACLU Newsfeed, send a message to
majordomo@aclu.org with "subscribe News" in the body of the message.
To terminate your subscription, send a message to majordomo@aclu.org
with "unsubscribe News" in the body of the message.
 
For general information about the ACLU, write to info@aclu.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent to the news
 
 -30-
--- DLG Pro v1.16/DLGMail v2.63
(1:209/245)
---------------