Posted on 04/08/2002 2:04:42 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
Court Overturns Bookstore Ruling
Colorado Supreme Court Refuses to Order Bookstore to Turn Over Sales Records on How-To Drug Books
D E N V E R, April 8 — The Colorado Supreme Court refused to order a bookstore Monday to tell police who bought two how-to books on making illegal drugs, saying the First Amendment and state Constitution protect the right to purchase books anonymously.
The unanimous 6-0 decision overturns a ruling by a Denver judge who said Tattered Cover Book Store owner Joyce Meskis must give records of the sale to a Denver-area drug task force.
Police and prosecutors in the closely watched case had argued that the buyer's identity was critical to their investigation of a methamphetamine lab and that they had no other way to prove who owned the books.
But the high court declared that the First Amendment and the Colorado Constitution "protect an individual's fundamental right to purchase books anonymously, free from governmental interference."
Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, said the ruling makes Colorado law the most protective in the nation of a bookseller's right to protect the identity of its customers. Colorado's Supreme Court is the only one to rule on the issue, Finan said.
"It is a huge relief and just a thoughtful and well-reasoned decision by the court for which we are very grateful," Meskis said.
Police sought the records after finding a mailer envelope from the bookstore outside a mobile home they had raided. Inside the home were a methamphetamine lab and the how-to books "Advanced Techniques of Clandestine Psychedelic and Amphetamine Manufacture" by Uncle Fester and "The Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories" by Jack B. Nimble.
The envelope was printed with an invoice number and the trailer's address, but no name. Police found no fingerprints on the books and obtained a search warrant to find out who ordered them. Police suspected the man who lived in the master bedroom where the lab was found, but needed proof.
The court said Monday that the search warrant should never have been issued.
Tattered Cover, one of the country's largest independent bookstores, had argued that the order violated its customers' First Amendment rights. It was assisted in the case by the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression.
So far, no arrests have been made in the drug case pending the outcome of the court challenge.
Bob Grant, who as the district attorney in adjacent Adams District refused to go after a search warrant, forcing police to go to the Denver district attorney, said the ruling sets a higher standard than the one established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He said the ruling will force prosecutors to show a compelling need, as opposed to just the "substantial and legitimate interest" required in most states.
Prosecutors could still go back to court with more evidence to meet the higher standard.
Sue Armstrong, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said the ruling does not prohibit police from getting records but sets the bar higher for obtaining a search warrant.
"The court has showed its best face in protecting the rights of privacy for those of us who visit bookstores," Armstrong said.
Bookstore records became an issue in 1998 during the investigation of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Independent counsel Ken Starr subpoenaed Lewinsky's purchase records from the Washington bookstore Kramerbooks. After Kramerbooks challenged the subpoena, Lewinsky's defense team voluntarily turned over the records.
In another case, a Borders bookstore in Overland Park, Kan., successfully fought a subpoena issued in a drug investigation for records of how a customer paid for merchandise. Investigators were not trying to find out what books the customer bought.
I have a reverence towards books and their protectors based on centuries of wrongful acts by 'authorities', and centuries of fighting back by those fiercely attached to their natural liberty.
Call me prejudiced. ;^)
What of the 4th Amendment? No, I don't mean the disgraceful joke the courts have made of it, so please don't direct me to some obscure omnibus law or court ruling that somehow explains away in legalese what the 4th Amendment clearly says. I mean the plain meaning of its words:
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."
No probable cause, no warrant, no search.
So barring probable cause indicitive of a crime, accompanied by a warrant, there most certainly is a right to anonymously purchase reading material.
And that is only the enumerated right. Not all rights are enumerated. I submit there is also a 9th Amendment right to privacy that must be considered as well.
The police had a meth lab in their hands. That's probably cause for anyone.
That is a case of tampering with the US
mail, methinks, and a federal offense. That
said, the notion of a religious school
trying to control what is in the brains of
students is not shocking.
All in the name of "crime prevention" no doubt. We gotta see who's reading what so we can guage the risks involved with reading such material and to better protect the citizenry. And blah, blah, blah, this is for the best, we swear!. /sarcasm
EBUCK
But that's just my guess.
Oh, I agree completely. I'm never comfortable when a court invents "balancing tests" that are geared so specifically to a particular circumstance as in this decision, which applies only to bookstore purchase records and only when the bookstore owner objects to the search. Presumably, if the bookstore didn't object to the search, the suspect's so-called "right to anonymously buy books" would suddenly vanish. I'm not the least bit familiar with the Colorado Constitution or that state's legal precedents, but it does appear to me that the court sort of just pulled this decision out their ass.
The book(s) in this case are alleged (by the police) to have arrived by mail (which makes the discussion of the mailer relevant).
I would. Two private, individual parties have every right to buy and sell from each other without government knowledge or interference.
How about the right of two private parties to do buisness with each other without government interference?
Guess again. If you own a copy of the constitution, the FBI considers you a threat.
Either that, or the idiots used credit cards.
...after all, it was written by revolutionaries who overthrew their government and refused to pay their taxes.
A right not implicated in this case at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.