I'm neither gladdened or saddened by this, but I sure hope it's not used as some sort of wide-ranging precedent. Philosophically, I thought the warrant was legit. How does the implication of expression (the owner's defense in this case, under the First Amendment) differ here from attempting to link a murderer to a specific purchase of apparrel? I'm thinking of Bruno Magli shoes, specifically.
I understand that possession of the book(s) is not a crime, but doesn't the existence of a meth lab provide a mitigating reason for attempting to make the link? If a kidnapper composes a ransom note in heiroglyphics and the police discover a book on the subject in a suspect's car, isn't that evidence, to be deemed relevant or not by a jury?
How may books on heiroglyphics do you think exist and should everyone who owns one be a suspect?? This is circumstantial evidence and is why a case is difficult to be made with such evidence.....