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.
Ah! Klingon or Vulcan?
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?
"... finding a mailer envelope from the bookstore outside a mobile home they had raided."
Bzzztt!! Thanks for playing.
You Are the Weakest Link - good bye.
No if we can just get a judge to rule this way on guns we'll be in the clear.
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.
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.