Packwood Defies Subpoena for His Diaries : Ethics: Senate panel seeks papers in probe of alleged sexual misconduct by the lawmaker. His lawyer says the move violates right of privacy.

WASHINGTON — Sen. Bob Packwood (R-Ore.), accused of making unwanted sexual advances to two dozen women over two decades, defied a Senate Ethics Committee subpoena Friday by refusing to turn over diaries he has kept since 1989 that contain details about his love life as well as those of other lawmakers.

The committee, which voted, 6 to 0, to seek Senate approval for enforcing the subpoena through unprecedented civil action in federal court, warned that it may recommend criminal prosecution of Packwood if he does not comply with its demands for his diaries.

The Senate was expected to consider the resolution promptly, but Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.) said Friday that he has not decided when to bring it to a vote.

Senators could be faced with a choice between backing up the unanimous vote of their Ethics Committee or setting a far-reaching precedent that would risk disclosure of Capitol Hill sex scandals or other highly personal matters.

Packwood’s prospects for succeeding in withholding the diaries may have been lessened by the fact that the committee’s effort to enforce the subpoena was both unanimous and bipartisan.

The committee chairman is Sen. Richard H. Bryan (D-Nev.), and its vice chairman is Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Democratic Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland and Thomas A. Daschle of South Dakota also serve on the panel with Republican Sens. Robert C. Smith of New Hampshire and Larry E. Craig of Idaho.

An attorney for Packwood accused the panel of making “a frontal attack on the constitutional right to privacy” by seeking personal information that he contends has nothing to do with the charges against his client.

But the committee said in a report filed Thursday night that Packwood reneged on an agreement to produce his diaries.

Under the arrangement, he would be permitted to block out entries dealing with private family matters or information covered by an attorney-client or physician-patient privilege.

After turning over some of his diaries, the committee said, Packwood refused to provide additional volumes unless he could conceal certain private and personal material beyond the scope of the agreement.

For example, James F. Fitzpatrick, who is Packwood’s attorney, said in a statement, the committee’s staff wanted to know about an unnamed senator’s extended affair with a staff member and a Senate aide’s description of her affair with an unidentified “member of the Democratic congressional leadership.”

While Packwood claimed that he was willing to provide entries from his diary that relate to the allegations of sexual harassment or intimidation of witnesses, he drew the line at giving the committee his diary jottings about “private, consensual personal relationships” with women not on his staff, including lobbyists.

His lawyer’s statement also said that the committee was seeking diary entries about Packwood’s campaign fund-raising activities, divorce proceedings and references to former female staff aides who are not witnesses or complainants in the investigation.

“Sen. Packwood has produced, and will continue to produce, all information relevant to the inquiry,” Fitzpatrick said. “But, if the constitutional right of privacy is also to be respected, the line must be drawn in these most personal, private documents.”

Fitzpatrick said the Supreme Court ruled in a 1977 case that the diaries of former President Richard Nixon must be returned to him because the government’s interest in them did not outweigh his right to privacy.

“If that right of privacy is afforded a former President, it is equally deserved by any United States senator,” he argued.

The committee rejected that claim, however, citing court decisions that have held that there is no right to privacy when personal papers are relevant to a lawful inquiry.

Overall, the panel said, the diaries “may be relevant . . . with respect to the committee’s current preliminary inquiry” into charges of sexual misconduct against Packwood.

In addition, the committee report said, the panel offered to compromise by allowing an independent examiner to review diary entries blocked out by Packwood to make sure they related only to matters protected by the original agreement.

Faced with Packwood’s refusal of this offer, however, the committee voted Wednesday to issue a subpoena for the daily diaries from Jan. 1, 1989, to the present.

The subpoena also calls for the senator to turn over the documents to an independent examiner for review to see that privileged matters and personal family information are excluded before the diaries are checked by the committee’s staff.

When Packwood refused to comply with the subpoena, the committee voted to ask Senate backing to seek a federal court order to enforce the subpoena by requiring him to turn over the diaries.

“Disobedience of that order would subject the witness to sanctions to induce compliance,” the committee report added, alluding to a judge’s traditional power to impose fines or even a jail term to coerce compliance.

The committee also said it might seek criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress if Packwood continues to withhold the diaries.