I'll assume you are a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Imagine a crime scene where the police find a gun that was used, still having a price tag attached to it that reads "Joe Bob's Guns".
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?
Of course not. In that case, and in this case, the police had a good reason to ask for that record. The item was a piece of evidence of who committed a crime.
There is no government action related to the content of the book itself, they are not criminalizing reading a book. The police are trying to use the book as evidence of who was part of the operation to build a meth lab.
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.
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.
I would. Two private, individual parties have every right to buy and sell from each other without government knowledge or interference.