Ruling May Affect Taping of Searches : Television: Executives say sending TV crews out with law-enforcement agents will be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

NEW YORK —  Fewer TV news crews may be following law-enforcement officials around in the wake of this week’s order by a federal judge here for CBS to turn over unaired news footage of a government search as evidence in a criminal trial.

That view is being expressed by some TV journalists concerned about the case.

“This is a troubling decision. . . . I think that we may see a great deal less coverage of police activity, not only of search warrants but of arrests as well,” said Brian Ross, an award-winning investigative reporter for NBC.

The case, in which a judge criticized the U.S. Secret Service and a CBS crew from “Street Stories” for videotaping the search of a fraud suspect’s apartment while his wife tried to shield herself and her 5-year-old child, “may expand the rights to privacy of particular people,” said Martin Garbus, an attorney who has argued many First Amendment cases for news organizations.

Other news executives expressed concern over the ruling but said it was too early to tell what the long-term impact on news-gathering will be. For the time being, they said, the question of whether to send TV crews on assignment with law-enforcement agents will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

U.S. District Court Judge Jack Weinstein ordered CBS last Monday to surrender videotape of U.S. Secret Service agents searching the apartment of Babatunde Ayeni, who was under investigation for credit-card fraud. CBS had resisted the subpoena, arguing that it had a journalistic privilege under the First Amendment to be present during the search.

Weinstein said that the TV-covered search last March was a violation of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and overwhelmed whatever journalistic rights CBS had to be there. Serving a search warrant, he said, does not give the government the right to give TV crews access they otherwise would not have.

“The First Amendment is a shield, not a sword,” the judge said. “While the First Amendment provides the press with a shield from government censorship, the press may not use this protection to justify otherwise illegal actions.”

CBS said that it would comply with the judge’s order to turn over the videotape as evidence for Ayeni’s trial. But CBS News President Eric Ober said in a statement that the network “firmly believes that a strong First Amendment privilege for journalists’ work product--including non-broadcast videotape--is vital if the press is to fulfill its news-gathering and editorial roles.” (A network spokeswoman said that the “Street Stories” footage had not aired yet because it was “a work in progress.”)

Attorney Garbus said the ruling is significant because Weinstein is known as a strong defender of the First Amendment. It points up that there are “different zones” of privacy, he said.

“A public figure committing wrongdoing in his home may waive his right to privacy,” Garbus said. “There are various criteria you apply (in covering such stories) . . . and there are valid First Amendment arguments for the public’s need to know about social issues. But there is no First Amendment right for the public to know what’s on your left thigh. . . .

“I think the larger issue in this case is that the government and the press were using each other, for no reason. I think TV journalists will have to be much more careful (in arranging to go out on such searches) against private citizens with boiler-plate cases and insufficient search warrants.”

But that decision should rest with the journalists, argued David Bartlett, director of the Radio-TV News Directors Assn.

“Judges have no business impounding videotapes and telling people how to cover stories,” he said in an interview. “. . . The judge is raising legitimate concerns about the abuse of privacy of an innocent, private individual. But if you took this case to its absurd legal extent, I’m afraid it means we’d have to get a judge to tell us it’s OK before we cover any search warrant or arrest.”

Henry Rossbacher, an attorney for Ayeni, said that the case should put the news media on notice.

“What Judge Weinstein’s decision establishes is that the government does not have the right to give entree to the press when it executes a search warrant on private property,” he said. “If they do so, they run the risk of criminal prosecution, civil liability and having federal judges impute their conduct to the government with unfortunate results.”

The practice of federal agents taking TV news crews on search warrants is a recent trend, driven by the agencies’ wish for favorable publicity and the producers’ need for good pictures, said Rossbacher, who was a U.S. attorney in Los Angeles from 1978 to 1985. He contended that it wasn’t healthy for either of them.

“The serving of a search warrant is not a supermarket opening, but, with the new ‘reality’ shows, you have all kinds of government agencies taking TV news crews along. What business does CBS have making deals with Secret Service agents for coverage? This relationship demeans both law enforcement and journalism.”

One official of the Drug Enforcement Administration expressed relief at the decision, saying that government agencies are under pressure from some TV “reality” shows to take them along on search-warrant searches and other activities.

“I’ve seen some things (with government agents) on TV that have made me practically swallow my tongue,” said public-information officer John Dowd. “If you go in on a search warrant, you’re stretching that search warrant if you bring somebody along. But as much as publicity is good for the agency, there are a lot of things that . . . can compromise a person’s right to a fair trial.”

Meanwhile, John Langley, co-executive producer of the Fox series “Cops,” said that he did not believe his show would be affected by the ruling.

“We don’t claim to be journalists operating under the aegis of the news--we’re considered entertainment,” Langley said. “We are there by invitation of the participating law-enforcement agencies, and we don’t disclose someone’s identity without their permission.

“We would’ve given the tape to the judge without any hesitation,” Langley said.