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.
The only way that "right" exists is as a penumbra of an emanation of whatever was going through the judge's mind.
Actually, you couldn't. You see, I don't brew methamphetamine.
All these things are "protected" by the requirement of a showing that the police have good cause to link the search to a crime. This simply isn't any different. The idea that there is a special right of privacy greater than my medical records, my house, my bank records, in a book purchase is silly.
I was certain it would go the other way.
Police found no fingerprints on the books and obtained a search warrant to find out who ordered them.
Everytime I'm in Denver, I have to visit that fantabulous store. I envy all of you in that area.
So they claim, but as the Court correctly pointed out, the police had other means to establish who operated the meth lab. More than anything, the police were interested in establishing who resided in the bedroom where the lab was found. Funny thing though, they never tested anything in the bedroom for fingerprints except for the lab equipment and the books. They never interviewed anyone who might have been able to tell them whose bedroom it was. They never collected or analyzed any DNA or other forensic evidence that may have been in the bedroom. Claiming that the book's purchaser was information necessary to establish occupancy of the bedroom is laughable, to say the least.
They also wanted to establish intent to manufacture, which is almost absurd. The lab equipment, the meth, and the "how-to" books at scene--regardless of who purchased them--were more than sufficient to prove intent.
True, but in this case the police were not "blanket searching" for everyone who bought these two books. They were looking for information related to one specific invoice number, plus the 30-day purchasing history of the suspect to whom the "Tattered Cover" package was addressed (the lower court had already nixed the 30-day history search, so the only thing at issue now is the one particular invoice).
Interesting tidbit, that. The book had never actually been read. The police department's own fingerprint expert had determined that only the covers of the books had ever been handled.
Not until you identify who bought them. Seems you caught yourself up and established my point.
If you have nothing thoughtful to contribute, you may just indicate so.
As I mentioned in another thread where they want to drug test entire schools soon they will want a drug test when you get a license, or yearly drug testing. Then maybe video cameras on every street corner, then in every house. Look at it as a series of pegs in a board going from top to bottom, absolute freedom at bottom, none at top. As a society of rules we agree not to start at the bottom. Each time a peg is moved up though, we slowly realize it will never move down. Like the time change the military set up years ago to confuse the enemy, some things just stay and never go away once we have them (ie sacred cow principle).
With each new law, each new case that 'we the people' lose those pegs move up. They are then used in other cases - saying, look they did it over there and the judge said ok, so you have to as well.
Speaking on strictly legal terms it may not sound like a bad idea or one that goes against our percieved notion of what the constitution says. But in the overall scheme of things these cases act slowly like rain, eroding the rock upon which we feel the country was founded. Much like christianity has been through - give in a little here, a little there, and soon you have a whole new faith with the same name.
It is our ability to stand by something which even if it at times has negative effects (like someone getting away with a crime on a technicality) that helps us in keeping our country free and great. Sure the 2nd amendment could allow people who are idiots to own guns and they may accidentally shoot themselves or use it in a crime. But we accept that, it is a tradeoff. We will never get to a point where there are no tradeoffs. The problem we have nowadays is that liberals think we can get to a point where everything is perfect - if we can just control everyone.
Funny thing though, the same god I have often heard people rant about - he watches you all the time, he judges your actions, punishes you, etc and so on - is what the liberals are pushing to become. Except they will be the ones watching us and making sure we all work together for what they 'believe' is best.
It would be interesting if they would re-write the 1st amendment and replace the word 'religion' with 'belief system'....
Did "Publius" have the right to publish the Federalist Papers anonymously, and did buyers have the right to read it anonymously?
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.