Judge Charles Haight delivered a withering blow to NYPD's blanket surveillance of public gatherings in a carefully rendered, 47-page decision.

Haight's decision clarified the Handschu guidelines, the rules which the NYPD must follow when videotaping or photographing political activity. He ordered that the current NYPD policy of wholesale surveillance of demonstrations stop immediately.

The police department argued that its officers should be able to attend (and record) public gatherings of all types "on the same terms and conditions of members of the public generally."

Haight demurred, writing, "There is a quantum difference between a police officer and the little old lady (or other tourist or private citizen) videotaping or photographing a public event."

In the words of Jethro Eisenstein, one of the lawyers challenging NYPD policies, the "effect [of the current NYPD written policy] is to treat every demonstration as criminal activity."

But even treating all political demonstrations as criminal is insufficiently Draconian for the NYPD. Chief John Colgan, the commanding officer of the Counter-Terrorism Bureau, included "Large public events such as the New Year's Eve celebration" in the category of activities that a wise police department must surveil. Colgan's justification is that "the videotaping of public events serves to help prevent and detect terrorist activity." [my emphasis]

Haight disagreed with the NYPD's characterization of even small, benign protests as potential lightning rods for terror. After reviewing evidence that individuals participating in a legally permitted sidewalk demonstration in front of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's townhouse had been comprehensively videotaped by TARU officers, Haight wrote, "Here there was no reason to suspect or anticipate that unlawful or terrorist activity might occur."

The bottom line for Haight is, "there must always be a legitimate law enforcement purpose—having a purpose of investigating political activity exclusively for its own sake is never allowed."

During the past few years in New York City we have seen a full flowering of video surveillance by NYPD at demonstrations and other First Amendment events. It is very likely that Haight's decision has opened up the door to more litigation challenging police department surveillance tactics.

It is crucial that we track the NYPD's compliance with the new federal court order. The folks associated with I-Witness Video will be keeping our eyes peeled for NYPD surveillance activity. If you see NYPD spy cameras in action, we want to hear about it. Please send your observations about police spying to iwitness@iwitnessvideo.info.