...............HMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Posted on 04/08/2002 2:04:42 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
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.
...............HMMMMMMMMMMMMM
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.