Legal observers and activists contend that the New York City Police Department selectively enforced laws and policies against those protesting the World Economic Forum summit, interfered with protected free speech activities and deterred others from participating in the demonstrations.

Protesters say police infiltrated numerous meetings, photographed and videotaped people attending peaceful rallies, and, in at least four separate cases, followed activists--all of which may violate the 1985 Handschu Consent Decree forbidding the NYPD from spying on protected First Amendment activity. In addition, one legal observer notes that it appears the police selectively enforced an 1845 mask law against protesters.

Arrestees say police strip-searched them, breaking a city agreement not to do so in cases involving misdemeanors. Most of those arrested on minor charges were held for two days, disregarding another policy to release protesters within 24 hours and not run them through the system if they are eligible for Desk Appearance Tickets.

New York Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Norman Siegel said, "It seems to me that are serious concerns affecting the right to protest."

Alex Vitale, who served as a police liaison, for two activist groups, said prior to the protests, police actions sent "a message to people that it would be dangerous to go to these demonstrations. I think the overall turnout was affected."

Leslie Brody of the National Lawyers Guild said the NYPD's "media blitz [had] a chilling effect on people's ability to assert their First Amendment rights of freedom of expression."

Eric Laursen of Another World Is Possible saw it differently: "I think that a lot of the unions and NGO groups scared themselves even without the police adding in their two cents."

Nonetheless, organizers say the estimated 15,000 people who turned out Feb. 2 exceeded their expectations.

Vitale said the NYPD didn't "provoke a wide-scale confrontation," which it could have when confronted with an unpermitted Reclaim the Streets march of over 1,000 people.

But organizer David Graeber felt activists "held out an olive branch and the police broke our fingers." Graeber said, "The police made it difficult as possible for people to make it to the end of the march. They tried to scare people through use of snatch squads, arbitrarily cutting off groups and random arrests."

Siegel said "the overuse of metal barriers" at rallies held Feb. 2 "undermined First Amendment peaceful protest... [replacing] it with a diffused and less effective visual and ideological message."

One protest organizer who wished to remain anonymous said the protest pens were like "a giant jail cell. We never got a chance to protest because we were in constant negotiation for our right to protest and under constant threat of arrest."

The organizer added that demonstrators were only allowed to leave in small groups and police "filmed everyone leaving."

Leslie Brody said legal observers told her that "the police were filming when there was no arrest situation."

Under Handschu, the NYPD may investigate a political group only if it believes criminal activity has occurred or is about to take place. The police are supposed to apply for permission from the Handschu Authority, so as to create a paper trail of evidence.

Since the policy went into effect in 1986, however, the NYPD has been caught spying on peaceful Cuba solidarity rallies, student demonstrations and prominent Black leaders. Even if the NYPD is prevented from investigating a group, it can turn to other law enforcement agencies, from the Port Authority police to the Secret Service, to gather information.

According to the Daily News, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said officers had infiltrated "rowdier groups and gleaned information."

Local activist and journalist Kristen Schurr says one presumed cop was asked to leave a meeting of the Anti-Capitalist Convergence after he said he found out about it through their website. Schurr said there was no such listing, "But it was on the list serve and we do know that the police monitor the list serve."

Eric Laursen said that when suspected infiltrators "were spotted and asked to leave, they left willingly."

To Graeber, the fact that one man who was "clearly an undercover [and] didn't get indignant" when asked to leave an ACC meeting was further proof that he was a cop.

Brody of the NLG said, "I think it's always inappropriate to have undercover cops in meetings that groups are holding about their First Amendment events.

Siegel said he was "troubled" by the charges of spying, but that he would "have to hear what the police have to say."

Other civil libertarians note that in the post-Sept. 11 climate, the likelihood of police surveillance, legal or not, has increased.

Also drawing criticism from the legal community is allegations that the police tailed activists. Brody said, "If you're sending undercover cops around shadowing protesters who have not broken the law, then I think you're not really respecting the right to protest."

Richard Singer, Kevin Skvorak and Kristen Schurr were among those who told the Indypendent that they have been recently followed by police.

Singer said that after he left the Sunday afternoon "snake march" in the East Village, he confronted two men who had been tailing him. One of them addressed him by name, saying "you can go to your protest, just don't do anything illegal." Singer says that one of the officers followed him to Staten Island, and kept pace as he wandered about the borough for an hour, even following him to a friend's house.

Schurr says she and a handful of people were also followed after the snake march, both by undercover officers and, at one point, three black SUVs with tinted windows. Fearing that they were "about to picked off," Schurr said they ducked into a bar near Union Square and when they left an hour later, one of the SUVs was still out front.

Skvorak, an AWIP organizer, says he believes he was followed several times recently while driving around the city. He said, "It is hard to say exactly because it could of course be a completely innocent driver following you around for blocks in large dark SUVs."

Also coming under scrutiny from protesters and their lawyers is whether the police ignored policies regarding jailed protesters.

Barely a year ago, the city settled a $50 million class-action lawsuit for having strip-searched 60,000 misdemeanor arrestees from 1996 to 1997. In 1986, the Supreme Court ruled the practice was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed in 1997, the city changed its policy.

At least two people arrested during the East Village march say they were forced to strip down to their underwear. Justin Lipson, a freelance journalist who was arrested on misdemeanor charges, says that police taunted him as he removed his garments.

Brad Will, another journalist who was arrested and strip searched, complained about other aspects of their treatment. He says at least one person with an obvious injury was denied medical care for hours and everyone he was with remained in handcuffs for almost eight hours. One man was "shaking violently, sweating and begging for help" because his cuffs were so tight.

Despite his misdemeanor charges, Will had to wait 28 hours to make a phone call and was questioned by detectives before being allowed to talk to a lawyer. Will says he finally saw a lawyer just prior to being released after 48 hours in jail.

Brody said "it's suspect that so many people were held for so long." She said, "We specifically asked the police if they were going to adhere to the new policy of treating protesters the same as other individuals. We were given assurances that that was going to be the case."

She explained that those who were eligible for Desk Appearance Tickets should have been released within 24 hours. "It appears that the vast majority of the people arrested were booked through the system, and given how minor the charges were, I find that highly suspect."

Also disturbing to Brody is the use of the mask law. She observed officers wearing wool ski masks to keep warm during the long, cold day of protests and rallies. "It would be selective enforcement of the law" if protesters were arrested for wearing the same type of masks as the police, Brody said, because there are no exceptions in the penal code.

Eric Laursen was one of many who noted the disturbing parallels between the new mayor's policies and that of its predecessor. "Some people have said they think the Bloomberg administration is taking a different tack. I don't think so. I think this weekend of protests makes it clear that they're still more interested in making the arrests than in protecting people's rights, because the police violated activists' political rights as egregiously last weekend as they did under Giuliani."

Under Giuliani, said Laursen, "the city paid many millions of dollars in court settlements for harrassment, false arrests, unreasonable searches, etc. The city's policy was clearly that this was OK--it was willing to pay the money and just let the police go on doing what they were doing."