Library Chief Criticized for Requiring Subpoena 715
sudnshok writes "Hasbrouck Heights (NJ) Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena. Her lawyer explained, 'Reutty did the right thing... At no time did Michele Reutty say to any police officer or anybody else that she would not give the information if it was properly requested.' However, borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police. 'It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter,' Horn said."
Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
sad day
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I like the line "...said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police." What, am I supposed to disagree with this? Hell yeah I want her to protect the library and its patrons and only help police when necessary. If it takes a subpeona, so be it. If she can help the police without compromising customers' privacy, that's cool too.
I was talking today about the recent theft of veterans' data and the recent trend of theft of personal data in general. Yes, I am one of those unlucky veterans. Sigh. Anyway, this really is not a privacy issue so much as a Congress issue. Until they force banks, phone companies, etc. to protect our privacy through common sense legislation, we will have personal records stolen with little to no accountability and police demanding our personal records from libraries and elsewhere (or the NSA demanding our records from AT&T). The worst part is, nobody seems to care. It is a non-issue in the news. It happens, but never ignites the flame of public debate and outcry. We care more about Jolie's new baby than our phone records. Sad.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
They DID get a subpoena -- they're just bitching that the librarian actually made them do that. It took a couple of hours; and it was all in aid of IDing a guy who made sexual remarks to a girl outside the library -- something that should be followed up, but not obviously worth throwing away the rule book for to get him faster.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Is it just me, or are librarians like the only ones taking a unified stand against the coming police state??
http://www.bccls.org/hasbrouck/contactus.htm [bccls.org]
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that they don't, any more than they have the right to be unoffended. I know people who don't feel safe if they see a negro drive by in an automobile in their lilly white neighborhood (though "mexicans" are apparently OK, so long as they have a lawn mower in their truck). I know people who feel perfectly safe standing in front of a liquor store at 1AM amongst the crackheads and whores on West Blvd. Basically, feeling safe isn't a "right", it's a subjective state of mind. I contend that until someone actually does something illegal that the police shouldn't be nosing around. "Think of the children", people will surely say, but there's nothing special about other peoples' children that justifies extra police nosiness.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Requiring a subpoena -- requiring that the full procedure be followed -- ensures that this procedure will only be done when it's truly necessary. If it's too easy, it becomes just like "rounding up the usual suspects" as a means of investigation.
"We have a peeping tom, so be sure to check for him at the library, hockey rink, baseball park, grab his vehicle tags, cross-reference his EZ-Pass (transponder-based toll device) find out the times he passes on/off the GSP, see if he has too many or too few assets and salary, credit report, job hours (and when he reports late), check airline tickets, and see if his family were members of the Communist Party..."
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting how today's government officials habitually speak in the 'ad hominem tense' of anyone who opposes them, isn't it? In a world in which uni-brows don't make police chief that would have read "more interested in protecting her library patrons' rights than helping police efficiency."
Their propaganda has worked (Score:5, Insightful)
The conspiracy nut in me wants to think this is all calculated to make people forget that police actually need a subpeona.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
If she were a *Detective*, maybe I'd expect her to be more interested in helping the police.
Well, since congress has been co-opted into being acting agents of the MPAA, it should be no surprise that some enforcement folks expect to be able to commandeer the investigative efforts of any & all public personnel, on a whim.
I'm glad this lady got it right.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand what you're saying, but is it too much to ask that our police be interested in protecting our rights? Our system isn't supposed to be adversarial to the point where the police and prosecutors are allowed to get as bent and dirty as the defense team.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought you yanks got rid of all your news shows and replaced them with infotainment years ago. Wasn't it in the eighties during Reagan's time that a bill was passed that removed the requirment for NEWS programs to offer balanced reports and present opposing views. Once that pesky requirement was out of the way your News shows were alot more entertaining and a whole lot less informative.
Up here in Soviet Canuckistan our state run news on CBC seems allot more balanced then the slhock coming from your Theo-Coporatocracy.
I suppose there are a few outfits down there trying to deconstruct the propaganda http://www.fair.org/ [fair.org] for example.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the real stupidity here: the system worked like it was supposed to, but because the cops were too careless to ensure they had a proper subpoena beforehand, they are trying to shift the blame to the library director. She on the other hand was ensuring that neither the library nor the police would be open to a technicality.
That's the real irony: she helped the cops cover their asses, and they're pissed because she knew their resposibilities better than they did.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Success vs. Start (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Success vs. Start (Score:5, Funny)
Trust us.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Well if you bothered to actually read the documents from Gitmo you would find that nearly everyone there has never been charged of crime, that the vast majority released so far as totally innocent spent 2+ years there. Numerous reports of torture and deaths under dubious circumstances.
Or do you just regurtigate the same crap FoxNews et al spew out.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Informative)
Or you could contemplate the fact that they got your name through either:
This has precident. In the UK when we had our terrorism scare from the IRA many Irish people were arrested and fitted up for crimes they had no involvement. During the "interogation" many gave the names of people they knew had no involvement in terrorism just to end the pain. They selected these people because had they named real people they suspected of being terrorists, they and their family would die horribly. Many of those people got the same treatment.
The common joke at the time was "innocent until proven Irish". The only thing that's changed is skin colour and that only seems to be making this problem far worse as it goes beyond sectarianism into pure racism. Arab == terrorist in your eyes. How can any of them be innocent...etc etc etc?
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Wise up and take it back before its too late.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Insightful)
The lovely thing about a Republic is that legislators DO have some incentive to listen to the public, and respond when the public really wants something enough. Corporatism muddies the process substantially, but ultimately, the politicians still need our votes.
That being said, the historic trend is for governments to take more and more rights away - until it's no longer a given that the rights that were once enjoyed are natural to have. It's up to the public to be diligent and prevent that.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:5, Interesting)
People can definitely regain some rights without revolution, but I think it may be impossible to regain all rights in general. The slaves, gladiators, and POWs of Rome lived more and more crappily until the Empire fell apart at the seams. The American colonies had to fight a war just to fix the tax system, which they'd fought continuously to reform for decades through the proper channels. The Berliners had to physically kick down the wall in 1991 to finally see their relatives. The people of the USSR managed to get their leaders to partially convert the Union to capitalism, which led to its fall, but their lives just got worse.
Re:Protecting privacy (Score:4, Insightful)
But really, your argument implies that the public was against each of the things you mentioned and it was just those legislators who were wrong. As though if they had listened to the public it would have all been better. They were listening to the public. Thats how we got strange fruit hanging from the trees in the deep south. The role of the gov. in this respect is to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority. The howling mob reacts blindly and when it goes after blacks, or japanese, or communists (real or imagined), or women, or arabs, or whomever, those people are shielded from its fury. It is the mark of the failure of government when we have to pay these people reparations for things we did to them that are/were clearly wrong.
Oh the Pain (Score:5, Insightful)
When the police are breaking the laws (or sneaking around them) who do we ask to protect us?
Re:Oh the Pain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh the Pain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh the Pain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh the Pain (Score:5, Informative)
That's right, but they do so passively, not actively. In other words, I am protected every time a criminal is removed from the general population and locked up. On the other hand, if someone breaks into my house while I'm home, I have to protect myself. SCOTUS has ruled twice recently that the police have no legal obligation to protect you. There is no law that says I have to be protected from criminals by the government.
Re:Oh the Pain (Score:5, Insightful)
To assume that some government entity can protect you at all times from any variation of opposition is ignorant. A free society is one where the people are empowered to enforce their perspective without marginalizing anothers right to the same.
This concept requires (or assumes) that any person willing to exercise this right will stand up in court to defend their actions, and accept the consequences, resulting from it.
Unfortunately we (Americans) have become a nation of cowards and sycophants. We do not recognize our responsibilities to this concept, nor do we behave in a manner that exemplifies it.
You must be prepared to do what you think is right, and to suffer the consequences of those actions as dictated to you by the society at large. If you curb your behavior to conform with that of the perceived majority, you will never realize how much power you really have.
Quite often, doing the right thing equates to being analyzed by police forces, imprisonment by "peace keeping" forces, and ostrization by the socially accepted.
The choice is yours. Exhibit behaviors congruent with your beleifs, or be subdued in order to continue acting "freely."
Re:Oh the Pain (Score:5, Informative)
Allow me to make it more clear (Score:5, Insightful)
The police are not the Access Control Lists of society. They're not there to prevent you from doing things. They're there to aid in repremanding or removing you from society if you fail to abide by its laws. The fact that this results in some sense of the word "protection" is just an unfortunate coincidence. I say unfortunate because people have come to believe that this is what the police are for; to ensure no harm ever comes to them. The result is this learned helplessness that has led us down this garden path of voting people into power who promise to "smoke out the terrorists". They're openingly promising to pass laws that deminish our freedom and people are eating it up. It sickens me.
Re:Oh the Pain (Score:5, Insightful)
This entire story is about those "guardians of the public" (yank-yank) demonizing a librarian who insisted on FOLLOWING those rules about illegal search and seizure.
Unfortunately for you, in the modern world, naivete is too dangerous to be endearing anymore.
Propaganda in the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
In this drama, the police use illegal means to trap potential criminals.
None of the police are ever criticised or punished in any meaningful way for breaking the rules. The drama shows the rights of innocent people being routinely and egreiously trampled upon.
I see it as the BBC portraying what some people in government would like. No restraint on the police, no rules of evidence, no need, in fact for actual evidence -- just lock up (or better still, shoot) the people you think are the "bad guys". How many people will watch the drama and later think it is OK for the police to take such actions becasue "they have seen it on TV"?
Re:Propaganda in the UK (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh the Pain (Score:4, Insightful)
--
Cheers, Gene
Re:Oh the Pain (Score:5, Funny)
Librarians.
Re:Oh the Pain (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh the Pain (Score:5, Interesting)
The phrase "Radical Militant Librarian" was used by the FBI to describe exactly this situation where somebody actually insisted on following the law.
Key quote from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
That's actually the best argument she can make. Any case prosecutors will have against this man will be much stronger because the library complied with the applicable law(s) when responding to a police request. What if that evidence had been thrown out because it was illegally, or at least questionably, obtained?
Re:Key quote from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
It never ceases to amaze me that the most diehard, ardent flag-wavers are usually the least American people of all... those who use the word "freedom" the most frequently seem to have no fucking clue what it actually means.
Re:Key quote from TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Key quote from TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Privacy in general IS a rather huge freedom, and I really wish the constitution framers had made it explicit. A little-realized fact is that they were against the Bill of Rights in the beginning--not because they were against the rights it protected, but because they did not want to give the impression that it guaranteed ONLY those rights and no others. Unfortunately, that is the impression most Americans have today. Sophisticated and all-encompassing recordkeeping and surveillence didn't exist in the 1700s; the right to privacy was really rather a given. If they had realized the comming law enforcement revolutions, I'm sure they would have made it explict. As it is, the right to privacy must be protected under the "all other rights are reserved by the people, or by the states" clause. The courts and legislatures haven't been perfect about protecting this right, but the Patriot Act notwithstanding, it's still there at least a little bit.
It is very much in the spirit of the constitution to protect privacy. The police have no business gathering ANY of my private information whatsoever until they have obtained a warrant. Sheep like you always seem to forget that part--no one's arguing that they don't have a right to the library records. By all means, if they need it they should get it!
Asshats like you are saying that they should have the power to search my private information even without reasonable suspicion. Please justify that to me. Please tell me why I should have to explain myself when a police officer comes to my door, asking why I checked out Mein Kampf or The Anarchist's Cookbook. Unless he suspects me of a crime, it's none of his fucking business what I read or why. Yet, he could very easily use such information against me if he wanted to make my life difficult. POLICE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUCH POWER OVER LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. You want to check up on my internet surfing habits, my reading habits, my phone calls, my porn collection, etc.? Fine, be my guess! You just have to have a good REASON first. It doesn't have to be ironclad; to get a warrant you just need a bit of a motive and/or a bit of circumstancial evidence. What you're asking for is the ability for LEAs to go fishing, trolling for petty criminals with absolutely no reasonable suspicion--but realize, they'll only do this amongst people they didn't like to begin with--the niggers, the spics, the liberals, etc. And like I said, even when they don't find evidence of wrongdoing they can still often wind up with damaging information.
I'm a law-abiding citizen, but I know I've checked out several books that, if commonly known (and correlated with certain facts reguarding my public life), might give me problems if I ever chose to run for office. What if I was an opponent of the local sheriff? Well, if this kind of shit were legal it would be a pretty simple matter for him to get my library records and let it slip to the local newspaper via an "anonymous source"...
So, there's your explanation, oh Anonymous Coward who claims to not see the usefulness of anonymity. It's given you the ability to attack me without losing karma or being added to anyone's foe list, hasn't it? Freedom to gain and share information is extremely sacred indeed, and if I may say so you are extremely anti-American (I'm going to continue to use the word American like it still stands for freedom. Who knows, maybe it will again... one day) for trying to deny that freedom.
Re:Key quote from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, there are two ways to deal with crime:
the "due process" model and
the "crime control" model
The due process model revolves around protecting the rights of the accused by presenting formidable impediments to carrying them past each step in the legal process.
The crime control model desires to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens by stressing efficient apprehension and punishment of criminals.
Judges and criminal defense attorneys are all about due process
Criminal prosecutors deal with due process so they can convict
Most Policemen jump for joy at the idea of the crime control model
So, to bring everything back to what you said: The Police don't care about questionable origins of evidence. It burns them everytime evidence gets thrown out on 'technicalities'. They do not like things that impede their ability to arrest 'bad guys'.
Many rational people agree with that point of view, because they see see criminals as enemies, not members, of their community. Anything that prevents the community from defending itself is disabling.
This Librarian is is experiencing, first hand, how crime control people feel about impediments to capturing criminals.
2nd model should be "police state". (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who advocate more authority for the police are actually advocating a "police state" as opposed to a "Free nation".
Yes, there is nothing irrational about the desire for a police state. Nor is there anything irrational about the desire to live in a Free society. This is not about rational/irrational.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Re:Key quote from TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
You'd think that. But in fact some of the strongest supporters of suspect rights (like reading the Miranda rights, etc.) are law enforcement associations. Why? Because (a) they actually believe in all that crazy land-of-the-free stuff and (b) they know that having (and following!) constraints on the police power helps keep them from being seen as -- and from becoming -- the Bad Guys. The positive impacts of being respected by the community, rather than feared by it, far outweigh the occasional slip in the system. Anyone who looks knows that effective policing requires community support.
There was a case in the early 1990s when the Supreme Court appeared to weaken Miranda rights (shamefully, I can't recall the case or a cite for it). Some of the most outspoken criticism came from a national association of sheriffs.
It's not about "letting criminals go". It's about having a fair and legitimate system for ascertaining who is a criminal, and it's about constraining the police power to prevent the abuse of actually innocent citizens. Or to put it more briefly, it's about that whole "innocent until proven guilty" jazz, plus that "due process of law" business.
In other words, it's basically about the meaning of America.
Grandma was right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Grandma was right (Score:5, Insightful)
Journalism isn't an exact science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Journalism isn't an exact science (Score:5, Informative)
Any person who wants to raise a concern or stand up for what they believe in is a "troublemaker", and will be dealt with accordingly. It doesn't matter what it is, the fact remains that they oppose someone in power, and will be harassed unless there is massive public outcry (or lawsuits that prevent further harassment).
Also, this isn't limited to police. Any organization, church or business will have a certain code that, when broken, results in labeling the perpetrator a "heretic" or somesuch.
Also also, I'm not being Orwellian here. This is the way things have always been.
Re:Journalism isn't an exact science (Score:5, Insightful)
The odds of said librarian getting "severely punished" drop through the floor when this sort of story gets good media exposure, again thanks to the newspaper who broke the story.
Unless you're a tv talking head, or a fact-free syndicated columnist, being a journalist is a crap job. You get to spend all day trying to get info from people who only want to talk to you when it furthers their agenda, and you do it for little money, and no respect.
Facts (Score:5, Insightful)
The facts are what we are cheering. It doesn't matter whether she helped an alleged pedophile get away or not. (She didn't.) She helped protect liberty. That's more than most of us do in a lifetime.
Duh? (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't say? That's precisely why that rule exists in the first place! Fucking morons.
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was "more interested in protecting" her library than helping the police.
"It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter," Horn said at Tuesday's meeting.
What utter bullshit. She doesn't work for the police, and it is her job and her legal mandate to protect the privacy of people who check out books from her library.
These "borough officials" are nothing but a bunch of grandstanding politician assholes trying to make their careers by harassing a librarian who was doing her job the way it should be done. They should all be voted out of office.
Send your thanks to... (Score:5, Informative)
I already have.
(Does anyone else just love that some cases are too important for proper legal procedure? They should have gotten warrants in the first place...)
Re:Send your thanks to... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Send your thanks to... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm Sick of Appeals to Fear (Score:5, Interesting)
It's my observation that these people will ALWAYS appeal to our base fear when they encounter barriers to getting the data they want, knowing that no one wants to aid and abet "Sexual Predators" or "Terrorists". That's why the due process laws, calling for subpoenas are in place here in the US (but for how long?) I can only hope that we can come to our senses and end this gross abuse of power. . . . Has anyone else had similar experiences? How come we never really hear much about it?
Re:I'm Sick of Appeals to Fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, are you shitting me? Like, are you really serious?
We hear about this ALL THE FUCKING TIME, especially on the internet (e.g., blogs).
Constantly.
More than we ever have before, and more every day. And it's not because there are "more abuses"; there's more people hunting for and collecting evidence about said abuses. Some of these people do it out of genuine concern. Most of these people do it because their political leanings are crystal clear.
And you know what? There aren't really any more or less "abuses" than there ever have been; there are just much easier ways to spread the word. That's what makes people believe we're heading down the primrose path to a fascist state and all this other crap.
Technology cuts both ways: it makes it easier for the government to abuse rights and freedoms, and it makes it easier for everyone else to find out and call them on it.
Protecting the library (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I'd actually be proud if someone said something like that about me.
It's ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Second - the Library director did the right thing. Why? Because if the information she gave was obtained without "due process", the pedophile could get free because of this. Now who would be the one to blame? The Library. Wonderful.
I'd pretty much tell the stupid police to just do their job and STFU.
Re:It's ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's pretty much what she did, and apparently it pissed some of them off. Although, interestingly the police aren't the ones that are threatening her
What I find interesting is that the police were willing to deliberately obtain potentially tainted evidence. Maybe they didn't care: maybe they already had enough on the guy and simply wanted the Library's records to confirm what they already knew. But that's irrelevant: they wanted convenient access to confidential information without going through the proper channels. Frankly, it's not her job to make things easy for the cops: it is her job to, well, do her job.
My hero (Score:5, Insightful)
Bravo, Ms. Reutty!
This is to be expected (Score:5, Insightful)
That exact scenario has happened before, where these small-town cops get worked up, don't follow the rules, and it ends up hurting what could have been a simple, open-shut case if they had just had patience. I really wish I could post a link to the details (I've spent a lot of time in Jersey Boroughs) but usually there is little to no public record, things get lost, or safety nets are put in place.
Its really really sad actually.
let's do something about it (Score:5, Informative)
HASBROUCK HEIGHTS NJ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbrouck_Heights,_N
General Info - http://www.hasbrouck-heights.nj.us/general/townin
Mayor Ronald R. Jones
Borough of Hasbrouck Heights
320 Boulevard
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604 USA
Phone: (201)-288-4111
Police Chief Michael Colaneri
Hasbrouck Heights (Bergen County)
248 Hamilton Avenue
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604-1811
Phone: (201) 288-1000
Fax: (201) 288-1691
Bergen County Prosecutor's Office
10 Main Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Mon-Fri (201) 646-2300
After Hours (201) 646-2700
Also let's show Ms. Reutty our support!
Michele Reutty, Director
Free Public Library of Hasbrouck Heights
320 Boulevard, Hasbrouck Heights NJ 07604
E-mail: reutty@bccls.org
TEL: 201-288-0488
FAX: 201-288-6653
i am going to give her a call when i get done w/ work.
i gaurantee if the people involved get just a few dozen calls or emails it will make them think twice. please take a moment to show your anger and/or support.
Let's be serious here... (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's that serious, you want a trail of evidence and iron-clad law-abiding police searches and questioning to bring you through prosecution. The fact that the police failed to get a subpeona for a situation where one would likely be needed (they wouldn't have to use it right away, only if the librarian put up a fight).
I applaud this librarian for forcing the police to do their job. Why, if everyone did this, we might actually have a trust-worthy government! Oh, the horror!
The article mentions that reps from a library association went to a meeting to show support for Reutty, but I think it might help if concerned citizens from around the country let their voice be heard.
Hasbrouck Heights Library website [bccls.org]
Here is a list of staff, with the board of trustees at the bottom. [bccls.org] I can't find individual contact lists for them, but sending snail mail to the library and putting their name would probably work.
the same old excuse (Score:4, Informative)
Stripping the people of the protection from persicution to make the job of law enforcement simpler is proteting people's fredom and rights by taking them away.
I said it before and I will say it again... (Score:4, Interesting)
seriousness of the matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently the police didn't think it was even serious enough to bother getting a subpoena.
I don't get it... (Score:5, Insightful)
errr... call me stupid, but isn't that what her job supposed to be, protecting the library? I just don't get it... If she wanted to help the police, she'd be a neighborhood watch woman.
Sad fact but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sad fact but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps we need a new word to describe this type of state because of the loaded content behind the old one, in the hopes that people will begin to understand where they stand.
Text of NJ Library Privacy Statute (Score:5, Informative)
a. The records are necessary for the proper operation of the library;
b. Disclosure is requested by the user; or
c. Disclosure is required pursuant to a subpena [sic -- probably transcription error in the database] issued by a court or court order.
L. 1985, c. 172, s. 2, eff. May 31, 1985.
TO Ellen Horn (Score:4, Insightful)
She did what was correct (Score:4, Interesting)
The subpeona has to be specific about what is to be seized. The librarian did what was proper.
The instrument was not license for a 'fishing expedition'. When the police returned with a more
specific instrument, she complied with the instrument.
This is how our system is supposed to work. The police were negligent OR STUPID. They ask
for subpoena's ALL the time. They should know that they need to be specific. Can you say "Keystone Cops employ Barney Fife"? Sure you can.
As stated previously, the city idiots are politicians, with NO CLUE. They were, after all, voted into office.
The inclusion of the city or Libraries lawyer, would most likely have not lead to ANY more protection to the
citizen's rights. Sadly, these same people have been around for many years, and have had the opportunity to
read newspapers that have published cases like this before. They did not read them or convienently forgot the precedents already in the law.
Pity.
Apropos Quotation (Score:4, Funny)
You can't be serious (Score:5, Insightful)
Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena.
You can't be serious!
What if I said:
"Michele Reutty didn't send me a Christmas card last year. This made me very sad and I got angry at some children. This was a blatant disregard for my feelings and resulted in harm to children. I suggest we put a letter of reprimand in her file or suspend her for 30 days."
You'd think I was nuts, right? Why? Well, she is under no obligation whatsoever to send a Christmas card to me. Now, here she is, having been pressured to do something she was under no obligation to do... and frankly, likely in breach of privacy laws as well. She said no. Good on her!
If people want a law that forces anyone to obey arbitrary instructions of police officers (hint: this might be a baaaad thing), then petition to pass one. Until then, she not only did nothing wrong, but she did the right thing. If the police need the information for an investigation, they should get a warrant. Until then, she's done the right thing. Shame on the council members who have suggested disciplinary action.
Fear of Totalitarianism out-ways fear of "bad guys (Score:5, Insightful)
Ask for a warrant... (Score:5, Interesting)
I told him that he did not have my permission to search the bags, and I asked if I was being charged with anything. He told me he could have a search warrant in no time. He had been fishing with the judge just that morning.
I encouraged him to get a warrant if he wanted to search the bags.
He said it could also take a while to process the warrant, and he would have to take me to the jail to wait. I told him I was a teacher and was on summer break. A wait would just make for a better story when I got home.
I asked if I was being charged with anything.
We danced around this issue for a while. I was polite but firm. He kept telling me he was going to have to search the bags.
He never did search the bags or write me a ticket or tell me why he stopped me.
It still pisses me off.
I think the librarian should have asked for a subpoena. There are fundamental issues here, and while I don't think anyone should obstruct justice, I also don't think policemen should be able to waltz into a library and ask for circulation records. It is not that you have anything to hide, but sometimes you don't feel like having someone digging through your personal stuff.
Well, I'm a librarian... (Score:4, Interesting)
In saying this, I am in New Zealand, where people actually care about privacy laws.
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
than any child molestation, rape, murder, or terrorist act.
but then, the population of that country called USA really doesn't give a damn
about that thing called liberty it gives drone-like lip service too.
never did really.
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
i never really thought having warrants and keeping the police in check was a bad thing....
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Informative)
Yours truly,
George Bush,
Prezident of the United Satest.
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
What if the dangerous paedophile actually managed, through hard work and dedication, to get a job on the police force? Sure, the overwhelming majority of police are good, but it's definitely possible for ONE bad cop to get through. Should he be able to get your child's records without anyone even looking over his work to determine if it's 'warranted'?
Food for thought.
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
-Benjamin Franklin
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:5, Funny)
Apparently you've never been pulled over by a cop in Georgia.
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
Or a Latino living in any of the same cities.
Or a practicing Muslim attempting to pray in public.
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
There is this thing called "The Rule of Law" which basically means that the law always trumps irrational emotional appeals. If the police could make a good case for those records being absolutely critical, then they'd have no problem getting a warrant for those records. If they can't get a warrant, then they can't convince a judge that they need them, and therefore they don't.
This isn't some piddly local statute either.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
People tend to ignore it these days, but the Constitution is still the law of this country. Screw with the little laws as much as you like, but not that one.
Re:Why do you hate America? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should there be an exception for "fighting terror?"
It is the mindset though. Look for more and more things to fall under the concept of 'fighting terror' as a way to get around due process and the Bill of Rights. I remember hearing some guy on NPR say some members of LA gangs were 'street terrorists'.
Re:She Did The Wrong Thing (Score:4, Insightful)
What the hell is "the spirit of law enforcement"? "Law enforcement" first and foremost requires the agents in charge of executing that duty to *follow the law*, right? The separation of powers spelled out in the Constitution isn't some 200+ year old idea implemented just to inconvenience the police, you know.
You should probably read up on cases such as Warren v. D.C. and Castle Rock v. Gonzales that clearly establish that the police have no duty to help or protect anyone. If they have no legal duty to help anyone, exactly how is anyone obligated to break the law to help them? Often, the police aren't even aware what the law is. I don't say that to belittle them, just that it's a fact - just this week, I spent about half an hour talking with a local cop about state concealed weapons permits. He was a nice enough guy, but he had absolutely no clue as to what the state requirements for obtaining one were, where weapons are and aren't allowed, which weapons are and aren't legal, etc.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
That's what a warrant or a subpoena is for, establishing that the police have a legal claim to the information.
-HT
Re:The news just ate it up. (Score:5, Insightful)
On top of that journalists are in a position where they can end up in posession of information that the government wants to know, and unlike librarians, they don't have the luxury of giving that info up if they want to continue in their careers. Strong and respected privacy laws are very much in their self interest.
And finally, journalists tend to be literate library affectionados, and, as such, are well disposed toward spunky, privacy-respecting librarians.