ACLU Urges Monterey County Municipal Court to Lift an Order Violating the Constitutional Rights of a Worker

September 9th Order Prohibits Worker from Public Participation in Strike Activities People v. Hallie Lake Cox
For Immediate Release: October 25, 1999

The ACLU of Northern California, in a letter to Honorable Judge Marla O. Anderson, of the Monterey County Coordinated Court, is urging the Court to strike the order issued on September 9th, 1999, barring Hallie Lake Cox, as a condition of bail reduction, from engaging in peaceful picketing, passing out leaflets or petitions on a public sidewalk, or attending union rallies.

In the October 25th letter, the ACLU of Northern California says "We believe that this order infringes fundamental constitutional rights of freedom of expression and association and principles of due process." The letter was written jointly with the Monterey County Chapter of the ACLU of Northern California.

The cases arises out of a strike at Basic Vegetable Products in King City when Mr. Cox was arrested and charged for allegedly throwing a rock at a bus transporting replacement workers. Judge Kingsley granted Mr. Cox's motion for reduction of bail and set bail at $6,000 with the condition that he would not publicly participate in strike activities.

On September 19th, 1999, Mr. Cox was arrested and charged with willfully disobeying the order. According to the police report, the arrest was based on Mr. Cox's driving on public roads, in his red Toyota truck, with several different flags attached (an American flag, a Mexican flag, a Teamsters 890 flag, and a flag bearing the words "Si Se Puede" Yes You Can, in Spanish.) The District Attorney filed a criminal complaint for contempt of court on September 21.

The ACLU-NC urges the Court to dismiss the pending contempt charges. The ACLU says that Cox may not be held in contempt for three different reasons. "First, he did not violate the order: driving a truck decorated with flags is not encompassed within its proscription. Second, the order infringes First Amendment rights and cannot sustain a criminal contempt conviction. ÖThird, the order is too vague to sustain a contempt judgement."