Posted on 04/26/2006 8:55:46 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
As dozens of anti-war demonstrators heckled President Bush outside an Indian Wells resort last weekend, a plainclothes Riverside County sheriff's deputy and another man moved through the crowd, the deputy waving a protest sign as the two snapped digital photographs of the demonstrators.
Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle said that the U.S. Secret Service asked that members of his department's intelligence unit monitor the protest. Any photos taken Saturday of the protesters were snapped "under the auspices of the Secret Service," Doyle said.
But Eric Zahren, a spokesman for the Secret Service in Washington, D.C., said the agency did not make such requests.
"We did not request nor receive any photos of any protesters, nor anybody else, which would be contrary to our policy," Zahren said by phone Tuesday. "We did not make any specific request for them to infiltrate the protest areas nor to take photos."
On Monday, Doyle said the photos were turned over to the Secret Service. "We wouldn't keep any of them. Any photos would go to them," Doyle said.
However, Doyle said through a spokesman Tuesday that the pictures were not given to the Secret Service because no "incidents" occurred at the demonstration. Instead, the pictures were deleted and are not being maintained in files or elsewhere, said spokesman Sgt. Earl Quinata.
Officials with the California Attorney General's Office and civil-rights groups said it is legal for peace officers to photograph demonstrators in a public venue, but there are restrictions on whether those snapshots can be cataloged or maintained.
Zahren could not confirm or deny whether the man accompanying the plainclothes deputy was a Secret Service agent. He cited agency policies barring the discussion of security measures for the president.
Quinata on Tuesday described the second man only as a federal agent. Quinata emphasized that only one deputy moved among demonstrators.
The two men, dressed casually, did not appear to identify themselves as peace officers to the protesters. When a cluster of demonstrators became raucous or, in one instance, surrounded a pair of Bush supporters to drown out their cheers, the two men moved in close, taking pictures.
One of the men sometimes posed for pictures next to protesters. Doyle said Monday that he "wasn't at liberty" to discuss specifics of the Secret Service request.
Federal agents may have had information that someone at the protest posed a threat to the president, Doyle said, or that someone intended to incite violence among the demonstrators.
"It's not a common practice," Doyle said of the surreptitious monitoring and photographs. "Our role in this specific event was in support of the Secret Service."
Doyle said he could not remember the last time his office deployed undercover deputies at a demonstration. He said plainclothes deputies were not deployed at the recent immigration rallies, or when Bush attended a fundraiser in Riverside in October 2003.
Deputy Carried Sign
No violence or arrests occurred at Saturday's two-hour demonstration outside the Toscana Country Club in Indian Wells, where the president spoke at a Republican fundraiser. Protesters waved signs and chanted from behind yellow police tape stretched along a grassy area on Fred Waring Drive, across the street from the Toscana's entry gates.
During the protest, uniformed sheriff's deputies and plainclothes law-enforcement officers stood watch on the other side of the yellow tape as the undercover deputy and the other man wandered among the crowd. The undercover deputy carried a sign distributed by Comité Latino, a Coachella Valley immigration advocacy group formed this year.
Doyle said the goal would be for the undercover peace officers to blend in with protesters.
Maria Bautista, a volunteer with Comité Latino, said Tuesday that several members of the group felt uncomfortable knowing that they had been watched at the demonstration.
"That tells us that we don't really have freedom of expression," said Bautista, adding that some members worry that the photos were not destroyed. "We feel like they acted as spies."
Demonstrator Keith Barrie, a member of the Desert Stonewall Democratic Club, was not surprised to hear officers were among the protestors, taking photos.
"We're pretty familiar with this type of activity," said Barrie, who said he has attended protests for 17 years. "It's offensive that they do it systematically. They were not inside (the fundraiser) taking photos of the people who were at that dinner."
Several government surveillance programs came to the public's attention last year amid news reports that federal authorities were eavesdropping on some international phone calls and efforts by authorities to secretly monitor radiation levels at mosques and Muslim-affiliated buildings in six U.S. cities.
Undercover New York police have infiltrated political-protest groups in that city, according to the New York Times.
No Expectation of Privacy
Authorities and some civil-rights groups agreed that public protesters can be photographed by authorities or anyone else with a camera.
"You don't have much of an expectation of privacy if you are in a public area," said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for state Attorney General Bill Lockyer. "When the police are out in public, commingling with the public, there are very few restrictions in terms of what they can do and observe. If however they are going to maintain and keep that information in a database, that's another story."
Under California law, local and state police must have some reasonable information that the person or group is involved in criminal activity to maintain information, such as photos taken at a protest, he explained. They cannot maintain the photos or video simply for curiosity, he said.
However, federal law-enforcement agencies are not subject to the same restrictions, under the federal Patriot Act, Barankin said.
James Lafferty, executive director of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, agreed, but was somewhat bemused when told that officers secretly took photos at Saturday's demonstration.
"The notion of doing it surreptitiously strikes me as silly," Lafferty said, who called the strategy "concerning" given that officers can legally take the photos without being secretive.
Such practices, he said, could chill citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights.
On Thursday, two Riverside city police officers attended a boycott organizing meeting of the National Alliance for Human Rights. Both introduced themselves at the outset, just like others in attendance.
"With as many demonstrations, and picketing that I've done, and marches that I've organized, I've never had problems with the police. My strategy has always been to include them," said alliance coordinator Armando Navarro.
"Sometimes they're kind of surreptitious."
Navarro said human-rights movements in the 1960s were often infiltrated by FBI or police spies who would provoke violence.
"The intent was to character-assassinate the efforts of the movement leaders by creating situations that did not play well in the public," Navarro said.
Staff writer Sharon McNary and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
" Great Britain has installed more than 1.5 million video cameras in public places in response to domestic attacks by IRA terrorists as well as increasing concerns about violent crime. According to one estimate, the average Londoner is now photographed some 300 times in the course of a typical day."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2002-07-22-ncguest11_x.htm
It doesn't stop the Brits from being the most vivacious protestors on the face of the earth.
Out of common courtesy, and for the sake of clarity of communications, I never use acronyms when speaking in a general forum like this one, certainly never outside of my technical "tribe".
"Great Britain has installed more than 1.5 million video cameras in public places in response to domestic attacks by IRA terrorists as well as increasing concerns about violent crime. According to one estimate, the average Londoner is now photographed some 300 times in the course of a typical day."
It's only a matter of time before such are WIDELY used here in the USA.
In fact, some cities, notably Washington DC, have already installed robotic cops that send you a speeding ticket when it clocks you breaking the speed limit.
Never thought I'd see FReepers defending communists tactics, and yes that's what this is, on this site. By your reasoning there's no problem with identifying the people in the photos and running an FBI check on them. I mean why else would you take the photos if you weren't going to try to identify the people? You'd make a good little communist. Hillary and Putin would be proud to have you as their comrade.
"When you "protest" your image is up for grabs---be it government or the ACLU, etc. It's a risk you take, knowingly."
Isn't that the idea? To let people know that you're unhappy about something, and are willing to risk repercussions for speaking out? If you're not willing to be known in a public way, then why bother?
And the protesters, at least those who understand protest, would love nothing better than to clog up the government with work in as they prosecute / persecute the protestors. They know that if the government finds it more expensive to repress the protesters than to address the grievance then the grievance might be addressed.
Finally, there are always the psychotic nut cases who need to be violent and destructive. Those people really do need to be put in jail.
I see. Thank you for sharing.
funny stuff.
Right. Maybe the poor little protesters got their feelings hurt by having their picture taken. Oops, forgot they were there for the press photographers and TV. Awe too bad if we catch a few terrorists in their midsts (not to say traitors).
/Sarcasm off
The ACLU doesn't have access to your tax records, FBI files, military records, telephone records, or computer accounts. The government does.
"Never thought I'd see FReepers defending communists tactics, and yes that's what this is, on this site."
As I pointed out (did you even read what I said?) the term "communist" is an inflammatory term that is at once inaccurate as well as indescriptive.
As I pointed out, those tactics are not "communist". They might be used by commies, but they are not, strictly speaking, "communist." In fact, they are used by every type of government in the world. The commies, for instance, breathe air; do you say that breathing is a "commie" thing?
No, you used that term in order to poison us against the action, leading me to believe that you cannot articulate your agrument in more substantial ways. You don't cite First Amendment case law, nor do you tell me how the government might misuse this info.
"By your reasoning there's no problem with identifying the people in the photos and running an FBI check on them. I mean why else would you take the photos if you weren't going to try to identify the people?"
Isn't that what the protesters want? I mean, if I don't want the government to know that I'm unhappy then why would I openly protest?
And as I pointed out in another post, the protesters WANT the FBI (et al) to spend time and energy and money on them, believing that if the cost of the protesters is greater than the cost of change, then change will occur.
So, why not give them what they want?
"You'd make a good little communist. Hillary and Putin would be proud to have you as their comrade."
Again, cheap ad hominim attacks that convey little in the way of logic. I think that you'd be awfully boring over drinks discussing politics, unless we just get off on calling everyone we don't like commie pink fags.
So you wouldn't have a problem if abortion protesters had government agents take their photos outside of an abortion clinic? Of course the photos would be turned over to the FBI, you know because religious freaks bomb clinics. So it's just a precautionary measure they're taking when they review their IRS records, bank accounts and on-line accounts. Do you see how this can get out of hand? Or do you agree with Hillary's review of the FBI files?
If the hammer and sickle fit...
Hey, if we're at war, let's fight a war. And that means massive mobilization. Personally, I don't think we are at war. We're in a conflict that doesn't require a draft and doesn't require massive economic mobilization.
You're the one who wants to call it a war when it's rhetorically convenient to excuse something, but doesn't want to actually fight it like one.
Huh???? I have no problem with the feds taking pictures of people at these demostrations. They are in a public venue, publicly protesting. They have ABSOLUTELY NO expectation of privacy here. If you don't want your face associated with this activity, don't show up!
I think the police should have multiple video cameras running at every public event. If there are no problems, good. If there are, then it is just like a dashboard camera, good evidence for court.
How much are FBI files worth?
But we are in a war, a war unlike we've ever been in before.
You're the one who wants to call it a war when it's rhetorically convenient to excuse something, but doesn't want to actually fight it like one.
Pot, Kettle, dear.
USSS does countersurveillance, but only when a protectee is involved. They won't reveal themselves to anyone, and won't take any action unless it's warranted. If things get out of hand, they're more likely to truncate an event or some other "passive" reaction, rather than remain in a situation that could spiral out of control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.