Fighting Police Snooping and Intimidation

THE CIVIL Liberties Union of Massachusetts (CLUM) is filing suit against the Fall River, Mass. police department which, if successful, would end police surveillance of political activities there "except where such actions are necessary for the apprehension of persons who will be charged with specifically defined criminal conduct." It would also order the destruction of police files kept on political activists.

The suit cites as defendants James E. Powers, Chief of Police, and Ronald Andrade, head of the vice squad. The plaintiffs are Erna Yaffe, wife of Bert Yaffe, unsuccessful Democratic-candidate for Congress in the Tenth Mass. District in 1970, and Rev. James H. Hornsby '61, a member of the Fall River School Committee. The case was filed in Boston's Federal district court on March 2.

The plaintiffs spoke at a May 5 memorial service protesting the invasion of Cambodia and the killings at Kent State University. The suit alleges that police made photographs and wrote a surveillance report on the event and entered them into a dossier it maintains on the plaintiffs.

The dossier contains no information on illegal or criminal activity by the plaintiffs, but only information on lawful political activities.

"The suit strikes at the use of various photographic and electronic devices for obtaining information and photographs of constitutionally protected political activities and participants," the CLUM statement said.

CLUM chairman Roy Hammer said that the suit was part of an American Civil Liberties Union drive to inform citizens of the surveillance techniques used by various agencies of government and to limit the use of these procedures. The police chief and the department have thus far declined comment on the case.

Recent testimony before. Senator Sam Ervin's committee investigating surveillance by civilian and military spies has indicated the magnitude of the threat posed by such activities to political activists of all sorts. The CLUM suit is important because it attacks surveillance by a local police force. Local political spying can be especially threatening, as the cases of Hornsby and Yaffe show.

Hornsby one of the speakers at the rally, had his picture placed on the bulletin board in police headquarters and suffered the embarrassment of having it shown to him by members of his parish who happened to see it.

Several pictures of Erna Yaffe were released by the Fall River police to the Providence (R.I.) Journal and one was published on the front page Sunday, November 1, two days before the elections. The picture, identified in the newspaper as a surveillance photo, accompanied an article entitled "Report Describes Fall River Radicals." The story refers to a Senate investigation of the Regional Action Group, a radical organization with which the plaintiffs have no association.

In the two days following the publication of the picture, phone lines to the radio talk shows in Fall River were buzzing with callers who pointed out that one of the people in the picture was the wife of the Democratic Congressional candidate. On election day, one Yaffe poll worker reported that six voters asked him why he was "supporting a communist."

THE SUIT contends that surveillance of this type has a "chilling effect on First Amendment rights and tends to frighten people away from participating in peaceful rallies and demonstrations."

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the surveillance and photographing of people involved in protected political activities, the maintenance of dossiers concerning these activities and the publication of such information represent a violation of their constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly.

The plaintiffs also seek a preliminary and permanent injunction restraining the police from surveillance, photographing and maintaining files or dossiers concerning people's political activities, except where such actions are necessary for the apprehension of persons who will be charged with specifically defined criminal conduct. It also seeks to prevent the releasing of such information unless similar conditions are met.

Further, the suit seeks an injunction ordering the destruction of all files and dossiers concerning the political activities of the plaintiffs "and other persons similarly connected."

"We decided to go into this case because of the importance of letting people know about the dossiers." Yaffe said, She labeled the taking and releasing of photographs "an immoral, irresponsible thing."

Hornsby said the case was an attempt to decide "a constitutional question of what the police can or cannot do." He said that he felt the judicial system can work and that the case is "a way to try to make possible a realization of some of those freedoms guaranteed us in our constitution."

Matthew Feinberg, staff counsel for the CLUM, said he could not predict precisely when further action on the case would come. He explained that no action could be taken until the U.S. Marshal served the complaint to the defendants, a procedure which normally takes no more than ten days. Once the complaint is served, the defendants have 20 days to respond to it.

Feinberg said Thursday night that he may file a request that the court order the defendants to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued. He said this would force a hearing on the case.