[Infowarrior] - Judge Orders Release of Reports on ¹ 04 Surveillance

[Richard Forno]

August 7, 2007
Judge Orders Release of Reports on ¹04 Surveillance
By ROBERT D. McFADDEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/nyregion/07police.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogi
n&pagewanted=print

A federal judge yesterday rejected New York City¹s efforts to prevent the
release of nearly 2,000 pages of raw intelligence reports and other
documents detailing the Police Department¹s covert surveillance of protest
groups and individual activists before the Republican National Convention in
2004.

In a 20-page ruling, Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV ordered the
disclosure of hundreds of field intelligence reports by undercover
investigators who compiled dossiers on protest groups in a huge operation
that the police said was needed to head off violence and disruptions at the
convention.

But at the behest of the city and with the concurrence of civil liberties
lawyers representing plaintiffs who were swept up in mass arrests during the
convention, the judge agreed to the deletion of sensitive information in the
documents to protect the identities of undercover officers and confidential
informants and to safeguard police investigative methods and the privacy of
individuals caught up in investigations.

The city had largely based its contention for nondisclosure on the need to
protect those identities and methods, and had also argued against disclosure
because the public might misinterpret the documents or the news media
sensationalize them.

But the civil liberties lawyers insisted that the documents ‹ even without
the sensitive materials ‹ were needed to show in court that the police had
overstepped legal boundaries in arresting, detaining and fingerprinting
hundreds of people instead of handing out summonses for minor offenses.

The ruling was the latest development in the long-running case, which posed
thorny questions about the free speech rights of protesters and the means
used by law enforcement officials to maintain public order.

It appeared that the plaintiffs, who had denounced the police for trampling
on the civil liberties of protesters who were fingerprinted and detained at
length for minor offenses, had largely won the day, while the city had
achieved a more limited objective.

The city and the Police Department have come under intense scrutiny over the
surveillance tactics, in which for more than a year before the convention
undercover officers traveled to cities across the country, and to Canada and
Europe, to conduct covert observations of people who planned to attend. But
beyond potential troublemakers, those placed under surveillance included
street theater companies, church groups, antiwar activists,
environmentalists, and people opposed to the death penalty, globalization
and other government policies.

And as the convention unfolded, more than 1,800 people were arrested, mostly
for minor violations, and many were herded into pens at a Hudson River pier
and fingerprinted instead of being released on summonses or desk appearance
tickets, which are more customary for such minor charges.

As scores of federal lawsuits challenging the mass arrests on Aug. 31, 2004,
were filed in Federal District Court in Manhattan, with plaintiffs claiming
wrongful detentions of up to two days and other violations by the police to
keep protesters off the streets, the outlines of the extensive covert
surveillance operation began to emerge from court records.

In March, The New York Times disclosed details of the sweeping operation,
including a sample of raw intelligence documents and summaries of
observations from field agents and the police cyberintelligence unit. Some
plaintiffs and their lawyers, seeking to bolster their cases, asked the
court to disclose the documents. In May, Judge Francis allowed the
disclosure of 600 pages of secret documents relating to preconvention
security preparations.

But a second batch of documents, including pictures and reports by
undercover agents detailing which protest groups were infiltrated and the
results of the surveillance operations, remained in contention. The city
argued that disclosure would reveal sources, methods and other information
that might compromise current and future investigations, while the
plaintiffs contended that the reports would disprove city claims that the
protesters planned to engage in violence, and would show that mass arrests
had been unnecessary.

In his ruling yesterday, Judge Francis acknowledged that some information in
the documents needed to be protected. He himself edited out what he regarded
as privileged law enforcement information in many ³field intelligence
reports² from agents covering confidential sources and techniques. And he
did not order the release of documents in which the Republican convention
was not mentioned.

But he rebuffed city arguments that general information gathered about an
organization would necessarily jeopardize confidential police matters. ³It
is difficult to imagine how someone could determine the identity of an
undercover officer simply from the fact that he or she was present at a
meeting or protest attended by dozens, if not hundreds, of people,² the
judge declared.