(Page 2 of 2)

He also said that because the department viewed the questioning of the arrested demonstrators as "debriefings" rather than "interrogations," they were not entitled to a lawyer, a position with which Mr. Dunn and other civil liberties lawyers vehemently disagreed.

Donna Lieberman, the Civil Liberties Union's executive director, said the group was pleased that the department had reversed what she called an ill-conceived policy. "This is a practice that never should have happened and raised serious First Amendment concerns," she said. "But the good news is that the city had second thoughts about it in response to our objections."

Advertisement

The disclosure of the practice and the department's decision to halt it came just two weeks after a federal judge relaxed guidelines that for nearly 20 years had limited police surveillance and investigation of political groups. The guidelines, which are known as the Handschu Agreement, were put in place as a result of a class action lawsuit brought in 1971 on behalf of people who felt threatened by police surveillance of political activities in the late 1960's and early 1970's. They required the department to seek approval of a special panel to investigate political groups or activities.

The judge, Charles S. Haight of Federal District Court in Manhattan, eased the limits after the police sought greater latitude to conduct terrorism investigations. The lawsuit stemmed from the activities of the Intelligence Division, the same unit responsible for the questioning.

Jethro M. Eisenstein, one of the lawyers who handled the case that led to the limits and recently argued before Judge Haight against their loosening, contended yesterday that the questioning — some of which occurred before the guidelines were changed on March 25 — violated the earlier limits and might also have violated the new guidelines. Mr. O'Looney said the department took the position that questioning violated neither set of guidelines.

Intelligence gathering in all its forms, whether surveillance of mosques or keeping track of homeless people, has become more widespread in American policing since Sept. 11, 2001. But the practice has raised new questions for a society founded on the principles of individual freedoms.

While such practices seem threatening to some people, others are more willing to cede some rights in the pursuit of greater security. But one of the protesters who was arrested on Feb. 15 and questioned about his political affiliations and past protesting felt otherwise.

"I was very concerned," said Brendan Knowlton, 26, a computer programmer who was arrested as he was trying to reach the protest that day on First Avenue. "I felt that the cops were on a fishing expedition," he said. "The whole thing felt sketchy. It felt inappropriate and irrelevant for why we were actually there."