Court Overturns Bookstore Ruling

http://www.abcnews.go.com/ ^ | April 8 2002 | AP

[spqrzilla9]

BTW, I don't mean to imply any putdown of Sandy, I appreciate the attempts to discuss substance compared to other comments we've seen in this thread.

[headsonpikes]

I believe you are correct; it just galls me utterly.

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. ;^)

[freeeee]

The only way that "right" exists is as a penumbra of an emanation of whatever was going through the judge's mind.

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.

[Whilom]

What? There's a "right" in the Colorado constitution to purchase books anonymously, but not a rifle or pistol? Hmmmmmmm. Nevertheless, the court did not close off disclosure of the book purchaser, only setting a higher standard for the search warrant -- "compelling" interest. Not a bad standard, I think. But why not apply it to other private purchases?

[spqrzilla9]

So barring probable cause indicitive of a crime, accompanied by a warrant, there most certainly is a right to anonymously purchase reading material.

The police had a meth lab in their hands. That's probably cause for anyone.

[freeeee]

I know. Recall my post #26 to you. I don't think that was Poohbah's point though.

[gcruse]

 
Some students even have to worry
about magazines that they subscribe to:

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.

[EBUCK]

and let them start getting information on what we read if we break the law and they will soon want to know what we read all the time to see if we might break the law.

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

[freeeee]

By looking at the titles of these books, I doubt they are normally carried by the bookstore and had to be special ordered, and the perps were dumb enough to give their names.

But that's just my guess.

[Sandy]

It should not justify the court inventing a new rule of law on this issue.

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.

[spqrzilla9]

That is the correct part of anatomy.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

Dont make no sense to me either !!!

[weegee]

Obviously the bookstore that Monica Lewinsky visited did keep paperwork on which books she purchased (the incident there was to see if books she discussed in taped phone calls were indeed purchased, lending crediblity to the content of the calls).

The book(s) in this case are alleged (by the police) to have arrived by mail (which makes the discussion of the mailer relevant).

[southern rock]

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?

I would. Two private, individual parties have every right to buy and sell from each other without government knowledge or interference.

[southern rock]

There is no "right" to purchase books anonymously.

How about the right of two private parties to do buisness with each other without government interference?

[southern rock]

Actually, you couldn't. You see, I don't brew methamphetamine.

Guess again. If you own a copy of the constitution, the FBI considers you a threat.

[southern rock]

By looking at the titles of these books, I doubt they are normally carried by the bookstore and had to be special ordered, and the perps were dumb enough to give their names. But that's just my guess.

Either that, or the idiots used credit cards.

[weegee]

Guess again. If you own a copy of the constitution, the FBI considers you a threat.

...after all, it was written by revolutionaries who overthrew their government and refused to pay their taxes.

[spqrzilla9]

How about the right of two private parties to do buisness with each other without government interference?

A right not implicated in this case at all.