KELLY CRITICIZES JUDGE ON NAMING OFFICERS

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and senior officials at two police
unions yesterday criticized a Manhattan judge who has ruled that three
undercover narcotics detectives must identify themselves in court, saying
that the order could put the detectives' lives at risk and undermine the
department's ability to fight crime.

Commissioner Kelly called the order by Justice Dorothy A. Cropper of State
Supreme Courtin Manhattan "bad public policy" and suggested that the
officers be permitted to use fake names or their badge numbers while
testifying, a common practice in drug cases. Mr. Kelly said he planned to
send letters to the city's district attorneys and administrative judges
that would spell out why officers' identities should be protected, and
instructed undercover detectives to contact the department's legal division
if asked to reveal their own names.

"We find the request deeply disturbing," Mr. Kelly said during a news
conference at 1 Police Plaza. "Revealing the names of our undercover
officers has the potential to put their lives and the lives of their
families in immediate danger."

On Friday Justice Cropper ruled that prosecutors had failed to prove that
the officers would be endangered if their names were revealed in the case
against Fabian Joseph, 40, accused last year of selling $10 bags of cocaine
in Washington Square Park. Two uniformed police officers testifying at a
hearing refused to name the three undercover detectives who aided in the
buy-and-bust operation that led to Mr. Joseph's arrest.

And yesterday Justice Cropper filed an order to suppress Mr. Joseph's
statements and physical evidence gathered by the officers; prosecutors have
30 days to respond.

"Right now we are reviewing the transcript of the hearing and applicable
laws to make a determination on what is an appropriate course of action,"
said Magda Gandasegui, a spokeswoman for the city's Office of Special
Narcotics Prosecutor, which is handling the case.

Justice Cropper has not commented on her decision, nor would a spokeswoman
for the state's Office of Court Administration. But according to a
transcript of Friday's hearing, the judge told a resistant officer on the
stand, "In this courtroom, we are going to be using names."

Later, in a hearing on whether an undercover officer's identity should be
withheld, the judge ruled "I don't see that a sufficient showing has been
made in this case for me to abrogate the right of this defendant to a
public trial."

At the news conference, Patrick J. Lynch, the president of the Patrolmen's
Benevolent Association, which represents about 23,000 officers, said
Justice Cropper's ruling set a "dangerous precedent" and gave criminals "a
foot up."

He lambasted the judge for having court officers escort her to lunch on
Tuesday as she tried to avoid a news photographer. "It's ironic that this
judge feels she needs bodyguards to protect her from the free press and
from these same drug dealers," Mr. Lynch said. "But individual police
officers are not afforded the safety of police officers guarding them 24
hours a day."

Michael J. Palladino, vice president of the Detectives' Endowment
Association, called for Justice Cropper's resignation. If the names of
officers were made public, he said, "it would defeat the whole purpose of
the undercover program."

In other boroughs, the issue of whether to reveal the names of undercover
detectives has, in large part, been resolved, said Richard A. Brown, the
Queens district attorney. An appellate ruling in Brooklyn in 1989 found
that undercover officers could testify using their badge numbers if they
showed justifiable fear for their safety, Mr. Brown said. Meanwhile, the
burden of showing the importance of an officer's name to a case was shifted
to the defendant. In his 11 years as district attorney, Mr. Brown said, "I
have not seen an instance in which a court has not allowed an undercover to
testify under his number, rather than his name."

Across the country, policies and interpretations of law on the subject vary
widely. Many police departments have tried to find ways to protect their
officers, like rotating the assignments of undercover detectives each year.
In Los Angeles, undercover detectives routinely give their names in court,
while in Reading, Pa., about 50 miles northwest of Philadelphia, detectives
are permitted to wear a mask and sunglasses during some proceedings.

In Denver, undercover detectives generally reveal their identities, but if
to do so would put them in imminent danger, prosecutors might consider
withholding their testimony, even at the cost of the case, said Lynn
Kimbrough, spokeswoman for the district attorney there.

"Then you have to make the hard decision," she said. "Is there any way to
prosecute the case and keep the undercover officer's identify confidential?
If not, you might have to dismiss the whole thing."