Big Brother in New Jersey

Startled by the Newark riots in 1967, New Jersey officials took steps to be prepared for any future disturbances. At the suggestion of then-Attorney General Arthur Sills, police began compiling detailed dossiers on people taking part in demonstrations, even when the demonstrators violated no laws. The surveillance was promptly challenged by the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. Arguing that police intelligence-gathering activities would "intimidate and harass" demonstrators, the A.C.L.U. asked a superior court judge to order the investigations stopped, the dossiers destroyed.

The judge duly issued the order. Indiscriminate snooping, he ruled, would have a "chilling effect" on anyone who wanted to advocate political and social change. But last week the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously overturned that decision and upheld the right of the authorities to keep files on all demonstrators, whether peaceful or violent. Said the court: "The basic approach must be that the executive branch may gather whatever information it reasonably believes to be necessary to enable it to perform the police roles--detectional and preventive."

Classified Demonstrations. The high court did, however, order a lower-court hearing on the scope of police surveillance and the relevancy of the material being gathered to a proper police function. Thus, civil-liberties groups still hope to narrow the scope of intelligence activities. The police now compile their data on two forms. One classifies demonstrations as pacifist, religious, right-wing, leftwing, civil rights, militant, nationalistic, black power, Ku Klux Klan and extremist. The second form is less vague, potentially more dangerous. It covers the people attending or taking part in demonstrations and calls for information on their families, employers, finances, personal habits and past activities.

The first of its kind in the U.S., the New Jersey decision could have far-ranging repercussions. Police intelligence-gathering is widespread. In Chicago, police keep tabs on suspected "subversives" by filming demonstrations and gathering personal information on those involved. Detroit police use a video-tape system to record sit-ins and protest marches. The U.S. Army's domestic intelligence operation collects, stores and distributes volumes of data on all kinds of political protests--and protesters.

Irrelevant Intelligence. Few lawyers question the basic duty of the police to identify and investigate potential sources of trouble. What bothers civil libertarians is the gathering of such apparently unnecessary intelligence as credit reports and marital data and its indiscriminate distribution and use. Their concern is valid. The Army's domestic intelligence unit has neither the time nor the personnel to verify most of the information in its voluminous files, yet shares it with several agencies responsible for security clearances.

Few deny that careful intelligence-gathering can be necessary and effective in keeping the peace. Forewarned about the nature and size of a demonstration, officials can take proper steps to prevent both violence and police overreaction. But zealous surveillance without judicial control, like the "probable cause" evidence required to obtain search warrants, may well pose serious dangers.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.