Terror threat sparks Newton librarian/FBI standoff

Boston Herald ^ | 01/25/06 | Dan Atkinson

[Skooz]

I could be wrong, but I have always assumed that the records of public libraries are a matter of public record.

[txhurl]

You barely escaped this time

[shield]

It was probably a set up by them...they knew the library wasn't going to blow...so they exercised what they think is their right...to get back at W.

[Gay State Conservative]

If someone had died, because of their nonsense...

Agreed,but that woudn't matter in Newton.To give you an idea of what I'm saying,keep in mind that Newton is heavily Jewish but the majority of the resident think that Israel is the second most dangerous and oppressive nation on Earth, after the US.

[randomnumber]

"...Since they are the library's computers, which are in effect the government's computers, they can and should agree."

An argument can be made that the public owns the computers and not the government.

Given the way most libraries are funded, I'd have to challenge that statement.

[Antoninus]

Newton officials are calling their refusal to allow FBI agents access to library computers without a warrant during a terrorist threat last week “their finest hour.”

I lived/worked in Newton for 4 years. The people there, on the whole, don't have 2 brain cells to rub together.

[trebb]

Public library and the folks wanting access to the computers were citizens. Anyone sitting at one of the computers would have had the same basic access to anything that they would have...

[RonF]

Nancy Murray, director of education for the Boston branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she was surprised the FBI asked for information without a warrant. “They couldn’t possibly expect to get (the computer) without a warrant,” she said. “Good for the library for knowing more about warrants than the police.”

Why would the FBI not possibly expect to get the computer without a warrant? Warrants are only required when the party you want information or materials from does not wish to give it up voluntarily. Why wouldn't the library wish to do so?

It has nothing to do with the FBI not knowing more about warrants than the library does. It has to do with the FBI thinking, incorrectly in this case, that the library might understand that when lives are possibly at stake, they should expect some cooperation from a public official.

If I lived in Newton, I'd move that the librarian be fined or fired.

[Stultis]

"Shoot the hostage librarian."

[Jim Verdolini]

"It's a judge's call to define probable cause, not a librarian's - that's why law enforcement officials are required to secure a warrant before conducting searches."

Couldn't this fall under the category of a hot pursuit? It reads like a terror threat was recieved, immediately traced to a specific location, and when the cops arrived, a bureaucrat says not so fast.

If someone is shot on the street in front of the library, and the perp is seen to run inside, do the police need a warrant to pursue?

[Jim Verdolini]

"If it were me, I might have agreed to the search given the circumstances if it were explained reasonably, but since I wasn't, I'll go with door number 1."

Brings me to another question...does one need a warrant to search a public building?

[dinasour]

An argument can be made that the public owns the computers and not the government.

And I think and argument could be made to get the warrant, then arrest the librarian as an accessory for knowingly allowing their computers to be used for terrorist activities.

Then she would have more articles in the bill of rights to assert.

[randomnumber]

Prove the librarian knew the computers were used for terrorist activities>

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

I would've told the librarians, "Look no further, folks, we found the originators of the bomb threat," cuffed them, and given them the "diesel treatment."

[lexington minuteman 1775]

So, if say Boston gets nuked due to an email from this library, is the town of Newton liable while they sat around waiting for a warrant?

[MortMan]

The library may have been within their rights, but not their right minds. The 4th amendment search rules can be annulled via consent - which is what the librarians withheld, forcing the use of a warrant. Because the library is not a private space, there is arguably no reasonable expectation of privacy on behalf of the user of a computer library.

I hope their obstinancy never causes harm or death to an innocent due to delays in investigating by the police/FBI.

My $.02

[Enchante]

Have you actually read the 4th Amendment? It's not apparent to anyone except an ACLU lawyer that it would apply to this sort of case (which certainly is far from anything the founders could have discussed in 1789).... a case of immediate terrorist threat issued from PUBLIC property utilizing PUBLICLY owned equipment. The 4th Amendment refers to "unreasonable" searches, and how could anyone except a terrorist or sympathizer think it's "unreasonable" for officials to rush to examine a PUBLICLY owned computer, accessible to all, from which the threat had been issued.... the first clause of the 4th Amendment refers to being "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects"..... we are talking about a publicly owned computer in a public space, not anyone's private person-house-papers-effects.... unless the founders are somehow supposed to have imagined sending emails from public PCs more than 200 years ago.... this was in no way a case of searching anyone's home, personal property, car, etc. The 2nd clause of the 4th Amendment, describing conditions for warrants being issued, should not apply to PUBLIC property open to use by all (though given the lunacy of so much constitutional jurisprudence in recent decades, I'm not at all surprised that they had to wait 12 hours to be allowed to examine evidence of a possible imminent terrorist attack). fwiw, I use computers in several public libraries all the time, and it never would have occurred to me to expect or demand some absolute right of privacy there, on public property, if a terrorist threat were issued from one of those PCs..... I'd expect it would be quite "reasonable" for the FBI, etc. to be able to act immediately to access them under emergency conditions.

4th AMENDMENT: "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."

[randomnumber]

"Brings me to another question...does one need a warrant to search a public building?"

I don't know, but an interesting read is at a DOJ web page Here "Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations."

[mysterio]

Then declare martial law. Or change the Amendment. The fourth Amendment is very clear.

[dinasour]

Prove the librarian knew the computers were used for terrorist activities

She is knowingly covering up for a terrorist. She can say, "yes", and she has no obligation to say, "no".

If the police came to my door and said my house guest, who is hiding in the basement, was suspected of terrorism and asked to speak to him. I would say, "Right this way, officer".

I would not say, "Go get a warrant", and hope he gets away.

I would be harboring a fugitive, in spirit, if not in fact, and the librarian is harboring a terrorist, in spirit, if not in fact.