Skip to comments.
Court Overturns Bookstore Ruling
http://www.abcnews.go.com/ ^
| April 8 2002
| AP
Posted on 04/08/2002 2:04:42 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
To: spqrzilla9
The mother ship issues these dates to us to let us blend among Humans better. Ah! Klingon or Vulcan?
To: lowbridge
Definitely not a member of the federation.
To: lowbridge
Organian.
To: spqrzilla9
You would not seriously suggest that the police have no right to go to Joe Bob's Guns and ask to see the record of who that gun was sold to, now would you?
Was someone shot with the books in question?
24
posted on
04/08/2002 2:48:54 PM PDT
by
Arkinsaw
To: Arkinsaw
Doesn't matter, the gun/book was part of the chain of evidence.
To: spqrzilla9
Hmmmm....
You have a point there. I'll concede that. It would seem that this is a 4th Amendment, rather than a 1st Amendment issue.
I would never condone allowing these authorities to simply demand business records without a warrant (as the PATRIOT Act allows). This case involves a search (of the bookstore) and searches are covered by the 4th Amendment. There must be probable cause and judicial oversight with a warrant, and there was in this case, so I must begrudingly agree with you.
However, aside from cases involving probable cause indicative of a crime, and accompanied by a warrant (as this case was), there is a 4th Amendment right to anonymity in purchasing reading material.
I'd also like to point out that none of this would be necessary if there weren't a WoD, and that this case very well could have been used, like many others in the past, to set a very horrible precedent of police access without a warrant.
I was also wondering, why the need for the business receipts? They found the books - why not just look for fingerprints on the pages? Were the cops looking for some court decision to set a precedent that freed them up from obtaining a warrant in these cases?
26
posted on
04/08/2002 2:56:32 PM PDT
by
freeeee
To: spqrzilla9
... having a price tag attached to it that reads "Joe Bob's Guns". "... finding a mailer envelope from the bookstore outside a mobile home they had raided."
Bzzztt!! Thanks for playing.
27
posted on
04/08/2002 2:57:59 PM PDT
by
brityank
To: brityank
The question of the credibility of evidence is for the jury. That a piece of evidence makes the logical link more likely than not is sufficient to make it relevant.
You Are the Weakest Link - good bye.
To: spqrzilla9
Any prosecutor who needs to point to the reading material of an alleged perpetrator has no case. This to me doesnt qualify as circumstantial evidence. This is only used to prejudice a jury.
To: freeeee
That's my point indeed. Proof of purchase would be stronger than a fingerprint showing someone had picked the book up once, at least that's my speculation.
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
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." No if we can just get a judge to rule this way on guns we'll be in the clear.
To: Crusader21stCentury
You are wrong. The book was about how to set up a meth lab. The crime was setting up a meth lab. Just as relevant as the case where a defendant was convicted for murder with, among other things, evidence that the defendant had checked out a book on poisons.
To: spqrzilla9
This is why all books should be burned.
To: spqrzilla9
What is the difference between bookburning and making people afraid to buy some books? Wait...."some." That's it!
Tell me what your take is on the War on Some Drugs, and I'll guess what your take is on the War on Some Books.
34
posted on
04/08/2002 3:08:47 PM PDT
by
gcruse
To: hole_n_one
bttt
35
posted on
04/08/2002 3:12:20 PM PDT
by
TLBSHOW
To: gcruse
It is by confusing this issue with one's opinions on the war on drugs that we end up with silly conclusions. This is a simple question of the validity of a search warrant.
To: opinionator
Fahrenheit 451 bump.
To: spqrzilla9
Let me see your library and just like a ham sandwich I bet I can indict you.
To: ATOMIC_PUNK
Someone should send this ruling to Dianne Feinstein and Orrin Hatch.
To: spqrzilla9
I think your looking at it incorrectly. The court is saying that the right of person to remain anonymous in their choice of reading material trumps the interest of the gov't in viwing this info. You won't be able to remain anonymous if the gov't can look at the booksellers records for any purpose it deems neccesary. Just like gun registration, I'm sure the gov't has good reason for wanting the info but the potential harmful use which the gov't could put that information to outweighs the benefit. And unlike guns,the right to read books of your choosing is even more important than RKBA. Giving the gov't the power to see what people are reading would have a downright "chilling effect" on the first amendment. Maybe if the gov't's need to know was a little more important, say if the book was on how to build a nuclear bomb, and they found it along with traces of plutonium they would have a pretty good argument, but not for this. How long would it be before they would be asking for list of readers and donators to FR because there was freep this poll print out found at a crime scene? Under your belief it would be just fine for them to do so, and I can sure guess the effect it would have on the number of visitors to this site in the future. Plus its not like the book has a serial number, identifying the owner, to actually figure out the crime they would need the name of everyone who bought a copy since I'm sure the druggies had enough intelligence that they didn't send it to the super secret drug factory. Now every reader including the merely curious would be "under suspicion" and I'm sure the gov't wouldn't merely ignore the names of the those other "innocent" people who purchased such material. Sorry its so long.
40
posted on
04/08/2002 3:42:16 PM PDT
by
foto
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-102 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson