People of the State of California v. Chapman; People of the State of California v. Smith, 1981-1984
Scope and Contents
The legal advocacy work of the ACLU-NC is represented in over 1,000 case files, dated between 1934 and 1974. Arranged alphabetically by the client’s last name, these files contain correspondence, legal documents, and attorneys’ working notes for a broad range of civil liberties cases in California. ACLU-NC files for cases argued before the United States Supreme Court are found throughout the series and include, notably, the Frank Conner due process case (1939-1941); the Korematsu and Endo cases, which challenged the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066 (1942-1946); the Louis Hartman loyalty/security case (1958-1963); and the free speech cases of William Ehlert and Edmund di Tullio (1964-1971). Other notable clients whose cases are represented in the collection include Warren Billings, Harry Bridges, Angela Davis, Fred Edwards, and Anita Whitney.
Thirty-one boxes of unprocessed case files, dated between 1971 and 1989, were added to the collection in 2011. They were procesed in 2019, and organized by name of case, including both the names of the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the dates during which the cases took place.
Dates
- 1981-1984
Access Restrictions
Some case files in this series are restricted.
Extent
From the Sub-Series: 42.5 linear feet (33 record storage cartons and 3 legal document boxes)
Language of Materials
English
General
These cases, particularly the Chapman case which is the focus of the materials here, ask the question: "May the police, acting without a search warrant, obtain from a telephone company the name and address of an unlisted telephone subscriber when they suspect the telephone may be used for an unlawful activity?" (here, illegal offtrack betting). Defendants Oris Lee Chapman and Margaret L. Mc Gee were both charged with conspiracy to committ bookmaking. Bets on horses were placed through a phone number, and callers either paid off their debts or received winnings from Chapman. A woman who had lost thousands of dollars on betting called the police, giving them the phone number used to place bets. The matter was investigated by the police, who informed the telephone company that they were conducting a felony investigation. This case examines whether the defendants right to privacy was invaded by this action, and whether the evidence obtained was the result of an "unlawful search and seizure" and, as such, is inadmissable in court as evidence.
The outcome of the trial is not clear from the materials provided.
Repository Details
Part of the California Historical Society Repository