Morally corrupt left wing?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
freedom of speech has nothing to do with it.
Speaking of that....here's the latest from the THOUGHT POLICE brought to you by ASHCROFT AND COMPANY
Court Upholds Anonymity for Book Buyers
Law: The Colorado high court cites "fundamental right" of privacy. More crime
investigators have been seeking the records.
By DAVID G. SAVAGE, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- The Colorado Supreme Court
on Monday ruled that the state's constitution
protects the privacy of both bookstore owners and
their customers when it refused to force a Denver
retailer to turn sales records over to police.
Legal experts predicted that the decision would
slow, if not halt, the recent trend of investigators
seeking records of book purchases or video rentals
as a quick way to track suspects or bolster a
prosecution.
Four years ago, independent counsel Kenneth W.
Starr surprised booksellers when he subpoenaed
the records of a Washington store, seeking
purchases made by Monica S. Lewinsky.
Since then, there has been "an alarming increase in
the number of bookstore subpoenas and search
warrants," including requests to online booksellers,
said Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression.
But the bookstore owners have fought back, and they won an important
victory Monday.
"The 1st Amendment embraces the individual's right to purchase and read
whatever books she wishes to, without fear the government will take steps to
discover which books she buys, reads and intends to read," the Colorado court
said in a unanimous decision.
This "fundamental constitutional right . . . to purchase books anonymously"
cannot be swept aside, the judges said, except in the rare instance where police
can show the information is absolutely essential and cannot be obtained in any
other way.
Moreover, the "innocent, third-party bookseller" deserves an opportunity to
contest these claims in a special hearing, the state court said. Typically, a
magistrate approves a police officer's request for a search warrant without
hearing from anyone who opposes it.
In the case decided Monday, police were trying to determine who had run a
methamphetamine lab. Two years ago, police raided a trailer park in Thornton,
Colo., and found the lab, but it was unclear who among several suspects was
the operator.
In the bedroom of one trailer, police found two how-to books on making illegal
drugs. They also found a mailing envelope from the Tattered Cover, a popular
Denver bookstore, but there was no receipt to show who had purchased the
books and no name on the envelope, only the trailer's address.
The officers obtained a subpoena from the Drug Enforcement Administration
for the purchase records. Joyce Meskis, the owner of Tattered Cover, refused
to comply.
Police then obtained a search warrant from the Denver district attorney's office.
Six officers went to the bookstore to carry out the search, but Meskis
contacted her lawyer, who persuaded prosecutors to wait until a hearing could
be held.
Meskis said her customers were aware of the 1st Amendment and their right to
privacy. "This is not an uninformed society. They care," she said.
The trial judge, however, concluded that the police had shown a strong need
for the information and upheld the search warrant.
But Colorado's highest court immediately took up the issue and quashed the
search warrant Monday. Its judges pointed out that police had sufficient
evidence to determine who occupied the trailer where the illegal lab was found.
They did not need the book receipt to "connect" the methamphetamine lab to
the occupant of the trailer, the judges said.
"Not only is this case a victory for readers and book purchasers in Colorado,
[but] we believe the court's opinion sets an important precedent for readers,
bookstores and library patrons throughout the country," Meskis said.
Ruling Can't Be Used as Federal Precedent
Since the ruling relies in large part on Colorado's state constitution, it is not a
binding precedent for courts around the nation. However, for the same reason,
Colorado police cannot appeal the outcome to the U.S. Supreme Court. The
high court's jurisdiction is limited to questions of federal law or the U.S.
Constitution, and the justices do not review rulings that stand on state law.
Finan, the president of the booksellers' group, called Monday's ruling "the
strongest opinion by any court on the importance of protecting customer
privacy in bookstores. It will influence judges deciding future cases."
He and other lawyers said the principles set in the ruling would apply equally to
videos as well as books.
However, two experts on the 1st Amendment differed on whether bookstores
deserve a special place in the law.
UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh questioned why purchases from
bookstores were more private than a conversation between two friends or
co-workers. Judges routinely have upheld court orders that require individuals
to testify about their conversations. For example, in a job discrimination
lawsuit, employees are required to reveal what others said in private meetings,
he said.
"It sounds appealing to say a bookstore is special, but why is a private
conversation deserving of less protection?" Volokh asked.
But Jane Kirtley, a media law expert at the University of Minnesota, said the
freedom to exchange ideas demands a broad shield of protection. "The issue
comes down to whether we want the government to find out what we are
reading," she said. "If controversial books can justify police searches, people
will be afraid to buy them, and bookstores will be afraid to stock them." |
