Submitted by admin on Fri, 12/01/2006 - 6:24pm.
CHALLENGING LOCAL GOVERNMENT THREATS TO CIVIL LIBERTIES:
A Report on Chapter Activities in Santa Cruz for 2006
Where, after all do universal rights begin? In small places, close to home . . . where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.
- Eleanor Roosevelt, The Great Question - 1958
Prepared by
Don A. Zimmerman
Member of the Board
November 16, 2006
Summary Report on Chapter Activities in Santa Cruz – 2006
CRIMINAL TRESPASS RULES FOR SANTA CRUZ PUBLIC PARKING GARAGES AND LOTS
· When Santa Cruz proposed effectively to prohibit anyone from distributing political flyers or soliciting support for environmental causes on any public parking lot or garage, the Chapter collaborated with the city’s Downtown Commission to urge the city to strike a reasonable balance between civil liberties and the need for public safety.
· The proposed ordinance defined as criminal trespass anyone being in any public parking garage or surface parking lot for any purpose other than parking, and, in addition, anyone taking more than a few minutes for parking purposes.
· When civil liberties are being curtailed on public property for public safety reasons, the Constitution requires that government demonstrate that it struck a proper balance between the First Amendment and the particular public safety needs it addressed.
· The Chapter’s input was evident in the final ordinance. It was applied to the four public garages and to just one surface parking lot where there was evidence of public safety problems, and was further changed to include a first warning requirement, an increase in the time limit generally, with still additional time for disabled drivers and passengers, permitting the establishment of free speech zones, allowing pedestrian use of parking lots for access to neighboring businesses and sidewalks, and requiring an evaluation on the operation of the ordinance in six months.
SANTA CRUZ POLICE DEPARTMENT UNDERCOVER SURVEILLANCE RULES
· The SCPD was found by the City’s Independent Auditor to have violated the civil liberties of protesters by sending undercover agents to their meetings without first trying less intrusive means, such as contacting the individuals or groups involved.
· The Police Practices Director of the ACLU of Northern California, in active collaboration with the Chapter, proposed that the City adopt specific guideline principles for police actions implicating First Amendment rights. These are consistent with the San Francisco Police Department general orders on First Amendment observance that have been in place for many years, and with comparable First Amendment guidance to California police departments issued by the Attorney General.
· After hearing the ACLU, the City’s Public Safety Committee nearly four months ago unanimously voted “to direct the City Manager to review and respond to the six points raised by [the ACLU].” That has yet to happen and the Chapter will again urge a meeting with the ACLU for a substantive discourse, recognizing, of course, that it is the government’s final call. It is a reminder that a fundamental civil liberties principle is the rule of law, which requires that governments act transparently to demonstrate how they act in the public interest.
SANTA CRUZ SUPPORT FOR SAN FRANCISCO’S SUPREME COURT CHALLENGE TO THE STATE’S FAMILY LAW PROHIBITION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE.
· The Chapter, earlier this month, urged the City Council to take affirmative action in support of San Francisco’s petition to the California Supreme Court to review a court of appeals ruling that upheld the initiative adopted in 2000 that provides: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”
· The Chapter is again acting in collaboration with the Northern California ACLU office, which strongly supports San Francisco’s petition and, as well, is co-counsel in a companion case also challenging the same sex marriage prohibition as unconstitutional.
SANTA CRUZ AGGRESSIVE SOLICITION ORDINANCE FAILS TEST IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT.
· Controversies with government based on saying or writing words often raises civil liberties questions, but words do not always have constitutional protection. Yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, etc. Santa Cruz, like most California cities, has an “aggressive panhandling” ordinance. But, unlike most cities, Santa Cruz outlawed profanity even if unaccompanied by any threatening gesture or behavior, thus raising a constitutional issue.
· After a federal district court rejected the city’s attempt to dismiss the constitutional challenge, the Chapter urged the city to conform its ordinance to the mainstream of other cities’ laws, as that would remedy the constitutional defect and spare taxpayers any further cost of defending a questionable ordinance.
