{"article":{"id":157,"heading":"Phila. police admit spying on activists","author":"Mainstream Press Article By Thomas Ginsberg a","created":"2000-07-22 04:00:00","modified":"2005-08-15 00:17:50","last_modified":"Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:17:50","article":"<p>Reversing an earlier denial, the Philadelphia Police Department admitted  <br>  <br> yesterday that its officers conducted surveillance at private meetings of  <br>  <br> activists planning protests at the Republican convention. <br><br> The department earlier this month flatly denied that police were watching and  <br>  <br> photographing activists. Lt. Susan Slawson, the force's spokeswoman, said in  <br>  <br> an interview published July 6 that any such activity would violate formal  <br>  <br> curbs on police intelligence-gathering \"and we are in no way violating it.\" <br><br> Yesterday, the department acknowledged plainclothes Philadelphia police  <br>  <br> officers had been photographing protesters. \"It is our people,\" Slawson said. <br><br> She made the admission after The Inquirer informed department officials that  <br>  <br> car-registration records showed that a car used during one surveillance was  <br>  <br> owned by the force. <br><br> Slawson said Police Commissioner John F. Timoney was not available to comment  <br>  <br> on the reversal. Slawson took the blame entirely upon herself for the  <br>  <br> incorrect information provided earlier this month. <br><br> \"I spoke prematurely,\" she said. \"I wasn't aware that we were doing  <br>  <br> surveillance. Everybody else knew. I didn't check into it before I made the  <br>  <br> comment.\" <br><br> Slawson's denial was widely reported at the time. Neither Timoney, Deputy  <br>  <br> Commissioner Robert Mitchell, who is heading security for the convention, nor  <br>  <br> any other senior police official publicly corrected Slawson's denial. <br><br> In another shift, Slawson yesterday abandoned her previous statement that  <br>  <br> surveillance would violate a 1987 court settlement. The settlement came after  <br>  <br> police were sued for posing as civilians to get inside protest planning  <br>  <br> sessions for that year's celebration of the 200th anniversary of the U.S.  <br>  <br> Constitution. <br><br> The department's new view, she said, is that the 1987 pact banned  <br>  <br> infiltration of protest groups, not watching them or taking pictures. <br><br> \"I read the order wrong,\" Slawson said. <br><br> Stefan Presser, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of  <br>  <br> Pennsylvania, which monitors police adherence to the 1987 directive,  <br>  <br> yesterday endorsed the department's latest interpretation. <br><br> Presser agreed that the order applied only to undercover infiltration of  <br>  <br> protest groups. <br><br> Slawson, commander of the Police Public Affairs unit, declined yesterday to  <br>  <br> say whether the surveillance was still going on, who authorized it, or  <br>  <br> whether it was targeted at people thought to be planning disruptions or  <br>  <br> violence. <br><br> \"We won't get into any of our intelligence operations,\" Lt. Slawson said. <br><br> While apparently lawful, the police surveillance - and the fact that nobody  <br>  <br> took responsibility for it - contributed to tension between police and  <br>  <br> activists over planned protests at the four-day GOP convention, starting July  <br>  <br> 31. <br><br> Throughout June, activists from several groups reported at least five  <br>  <br> instances in which unidentified men were seen watching and photographing  <br>  <br> people entering and leaving protest meetings. <br><br> In one instance, on June 29, an Inquirer reporter observed two men dressed in  <br>  <br> casual clothes, with one carrying a Nikon camera, watching activists arrive  <br>  <br> for a meeting at the offices of the leftist group Women's International  <br>  <br> League for Peace and Freedom.  <br><br> The pair at times sat on the hood of a maroon Plymouth, a car The Inquirer  <br>  <br> has learned was registered to the department.  <br><br> Both men calmly refused to answer any questions posed by an Inquirer reporter  <br>  <br> and later by several activists. \"I got no beef with them,\" one of the men  <br>  <br> said when asked about the demonstrators. <br><br> Yesterday's admission by the department prompted a mixture of scorn and  <br>  <br> disdain from protest organizers. <br><br> \"This is just outrageous,\" said Michael Morrill, an organizer of a large  <br>  <br> rally on July 30 called Unity 2000. \"If this is in fact going on, and city  <br>  <br> officials are lying about it, I wonder what else they're doing.\" <br><br> \"We're taking it in stride now,\" said Amy Kwasnicki, a member of the  <br>  <br> Philadelphia Direct Action Group, an umbrella group for protesters. \"Whatever  <br>  <br> is going to happen is going to happen.\" <br><br> The Direct Action Group is coordinating three days of protests and civil  <br>  <br> disobedience during the convention, including undisclosed actions for which  <br>  <br> protesters are preparing to be arrested. They have pledged not to be violent. <br><br> Asked yesterday about the reasons for the surveillance, Slawson said only:  <br>  <br> \"Just because we are getting information about people who are going to be  <br>  <br> part of the demonstrations here doesn't mean we believe they in particular  <br>  <br> are going to be in any way disruptive or violent.\" <br><br> The surveillance is not the only picture-taking controversy now involving the  <br>  <br> Philadelphia police. <br><br> A New York City-based civil-rights group complained last week, in a letter to  <br>  <br> New York police, that a Philadelphia police officer photographed  <br>  <br> demonstrators during a May 1 rally in Manhattan. <br><br> Philadelphia commanders have confirmed that officers traveled to New York  <br>  <br> City for May 1 rallies, as well as to demonstrations in Washington, D.C., and  <br>  <br> Seattle as part of intelligence-gathering for the GOP convention. <br><br> Slawson yesterday refused to say whether Philadelphia police had, in fact,  <br>  <br> photographed protesters in New York. <br><br> New York police are forbidden to photograph demonstrators under a 1985  <br>  <br> consent decree. The Center for Constitutional Rights, citing that decree,  <br>  <br> said in its letter of complaint that it might sue New York police for  <br>  <br> collaborating with Philadelphia officers in the surveillance. It's not clear  <br>  <br> whether the decree would cover Philadelphia police.  <br>  <br> <\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/plain","summary":"A spokeswoman had denied officers watched meetings as the convention neared. \r\nA car registration gave them away.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2000\/07\/phila._pol.txt","filesize":"5.6 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2000\/07\/157.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}