[spqrzilla9]

It doesn't matter if Sandy is correct that the police are somehow making up for their incompetence, that is nothing but a side issue. It should not justify the court inventing a new rule of law on this issue.

[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. ;^)

[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.