By RICHARD CARELLI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Most law-abiding Americans may be willing to sacrifice some personal privacy for enhanced safety. But at a time when technology allows police to hear through walls, Washington lawyer Sheldon Krantz worries about reaching a point "where nothing about any of us is private any more."

"The era of Dick Tracy has arrived," Krantz says. "There's a need for greater public understanding of the new technology available to law enforcement. There ought to be a debate about it."

Adds Houston lawyer Samuel Guiberson: "It's critical that we continue to evaluate each generation of technology -- risks as well as rewards."

Both men are members of an American Bar Association task force proposing standards for police snooping, or "technologically assisted physical surveillance."

The task force's 10 pages of recommendations are to be voted on by the ABA's policy-making House of Delegates in August. If adopted, they would be added to the group's Criminal Justice Standards on Electronic Surveillance, which was drafted in the 1960s to deal with wiretaps.

The report recognizes a need for high-tech surveillance and a possible need to regulate it.

"Technologically assisted physical surveillance can ... facilitate the detection, investigation, prevention and deterrence of crime, the safety of officers and citizens, the apprehension and prosecution of criminals and the protection of the innocent," the report states.

Use of that same technology "can also diminish privacy, freedom of speech, association and travel, and the openness of society," it adds. "It thus may need to be regulated."

When and how much to regulate are decisions the report leaves to law enforcement agencies, state legislatures, the courts and the public. The benefit to law enforcement and the invasiveness of the surveillance must be factors.

For example, about two dozen prisons across the nation are using a contraption called Secure 1000, which can detect weapons, explosives, drugs or cash concealed under someone's clothing without physically touching them. Visitors are scanned electronically before being allowed to see inmates.

Probably a good upgrade for airports, right? How about scanning students at the start of the public school day? How about scanning visitors who want to use public parks?

"I would hate to see the day when department stores routinely subject shoppers to such scans," says Guiberson. Others might disagree with where he draws the line.

Baltimore is one big city that decided to harness technology for law enforcement by mounting fixed video cameras in 16 downtown locations. Crime rates fell precipitously, says Frank Russo, director of the coalition of government officials and civic leaders responsible for the innovation.

The videotapes are disposed of every four days if no crimes are reported, he said, alleviating concerns about an electronic archive maintained by police. Also, the cameras are on poles with signs clearly identifying their purpose.

Good idea for a public street? How about in a public housing project? How about on the street where you live? The new report says the public should have a chance to decide.