JUDGE DENIES POLICE-SEARCH DATA TO U.S. ATTORNEY

A federal judge in Manhattan refused yesterday to order the New York Police
Department to turn over internal records to federal prosecutors who have
been investigating the stop-and-frisk tactics of the department's Street
Crime Unit.

The ruling, by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court, may
result in a quicker decision by the chief federal prosecutor, Mary Jo
White, the United States attorney in Manhattan, on whether to file a
lawsuit against the city that could seek changes in police practices and
possibly the appointment of a monitor.

Ms. White's office has been investigating the stop-and-frisk tactics of the
Street Crime Unit since March 1999, shortly after the fatal shooting of
Amadou Diallo by four officers who were members of the unit. The federal
investigation has sought to determine whether there has been a pattern or
practice of civil rights violations by the unit's officers.

Last year, Ms. White's office reached an internal conclusion that there was
a statistical pattern of racial profiling by the unit's officers, but the
office has continued its investigation and not yet filed a suit.

Until late last year, the city was cooperating with Ms. White's
investigation. But after the cooperation stopped last fall, Ms. White's
office asked Judge Scheindlin to order the Police Department to turn over
internal reports of stop-and-frisk incidents that the city was already
providing in a private class-action lawsuit challenging police practices.

Ms. White's office told Judge Scheindlin that it needed the records, which
were being turned over in the class action under a strict confidentiality
order, to finish its investigation.

But unlike federal grand jury investigations, in which prosecutors may
compel the turning over of documents through a subpoena, a
pattern-or-practice investigation does not generally entitle prosecutors to
internal records before a suit is filed.

The only exception is a case in which prosecutors can show "some
extraordinary circumstance or compelling need" -- a legal standard not met
in this case, Judge Scheindlin wrote.

A senior city lawyer, Daniel S. Connolly, said: "We're gratified by the
court's decision, which we believe is consistent with the state of law. We
obviously don't want them to initiate a lawsuit, and quite frankly, we
don't believe the basis for a lawsuit exists."

A spokesman for Ms. White's office would not comment.

Last month, a prosecutor, Sara L. Shudofsky, argued that the case was an
exception. "I don't think it is possible to conceive of an investigation
that is of greater public importance," she told the judge, than whether the
Police Department discriminates against blacks and Hispanics in its
stop-and-frisk practices.

Mr. Connolly said the city had questions about the "good faith of how the
investigation was being conducted" and whether records turned over
previously were misused. The request also unreasonably intruded into local
affairs, he said.