Slashdot Mirror
Tattered Cover v. Thornton Reversed
TheMatt writes "In a victory for all those who like the First Amendment, the Colorado Supreme Court today reversed
and remanded 'Tattered Cover v. Thornton'.
The case concerned the Thornton police attempting to use a search warrant to gain access to the book-buying records of a suspected criminal. The Tattered Cover asserted First Amendment rights and refused to comply with the warrant.
It is believed this will be heard by the US Supreme Court eventually." I can only imagine what the Tattered cover's legal bill must be like.
It's bad enough that the RIAA wants to watch who's listening to what and where and how. It's bad enough that the MPAA wants to make sure you don't watch DVDs in the wrong country on the wrong brand of TV. It's horrible that they've bought enough senators to have their way with us, but it's fucking untenable that what we read can be subpeoaned and used against us.
Reading, music and movies are all unsafe at any speed. Let me know if you find a hobby I can enjoy without feeling someone's eyes on my back.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
The Tattered Cover may not be in the right. The first amendment protects speech, religion, and the right to openly demonstrate those. It does not protect the right to privacy. I can certainly understand the bookstores reluctance to give out its customer's purchasing records, but if the government has a warrant there might not be much that can be done. I would assume this falls under the fourth amendment about search and seizure.
I doubt the U.S. Supreme Court will take it.
The Colorado Supreme Court restricted the ability of Colorado police to execute a search warrant.
First, there is a doctrine that says if there is an independent state ground for the ruling, then there is not a basis for Supreme Court review. This doctrine has less applicability when a Constitutional right is being allegedly violated. However, nobody says that the Colorado police have a Constitutional right to the search -- if anything the ruling tends to support Constitutional rights.
Second, Federalism doctrine, which the current U.S. Supreme Court favors, would tend to lead to the conclusion that the U.S. Supreme Court should let the Colorado Supreme Court rein in the Colorado police if it wants to.
There will be other cases in the future, and the Supreme Court may well hear one. Just not this one.
Well, you can order online. Thus simultaneously supporting the Amazon boycott.
An excerpt from the opinion summary:
. . . the law enforcement need for the book purchase record in this case was not sufficiently compelling to outweigh the harm that would likely follow from execution of the search warrant, in part because law enforcement officials sought the purchase record for reasons related to the contents of the books that the suspect may have purchased. (emphasis added)
In other words, the police weren't interested in any criminal acts related to the purchase of these books, but rather if there was any content in the books which the prosecution could use to strengthen their case against the defendant.
To draw an Internet analogy, this would be akin to the cops forcing an ISP to turn over their Web proxy logs, in order to determine if a suspected terrorist visited a site on bomb-making, instead of finding hard-copy instructions in the terrorist's apartment (which certainly could be used as circumstantial evidence).
This decision makes a lot of sense. It would be one thing if the suspect had bought a dictionary, then used it to brain a little old lady during a mugging--then the police would have the right to obtain purchase records in order to prove the perp bought the murder weapon. But simply to say that "he bought The Anarchist's Cookbook, therefore he must be guilty"--that is a dangerous assumption, and clearly represents an attack on our rights to free expression.
One question:
Can you imagine Barnes & Noble, Borders, or Amazon.com doing what the Tattered Cover has done?
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Something most independent bookstores have in common is that they will fight tooth and nail to preserve your First Amendment rights. What Tattered just did was fight back what could easily be the first step on a slippery slope to eroding our rights. Think of what might happen next if Tattered lost. Publishers might become reluctant to publish so-called "subversive" material. Readers would have to be wary about which books they bought, knowing that the records could be subpeonaed.
Think about that the next time you buy books. The big chains, amazon, et. al do not have this tradition of protecting your information - in fact they are looking at ways to make use of it for marketing purposes. Its the independent bookstores around the country who really care about defending the First Amendment, because that reflects in the quality of literature we will see, and ultimately reflects on our individual freedom to write and speak as we choose. When was the last time you saw "Banned Books week" at amazon.com or Barnes & Noble?
Now we have a good legal precedent to back us up. Thanks, Tattered Cover!
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
In the future, instead of linking to Amazon when you want to refer someone to a book, link to The Tattered Cover, like this:
The Termcap Manual, by Richard Stallman.
Support the folks that regard as important the same ideals you regard as important. Amazon is not your friend. The Tattered Cover is. They are fighting the good fight, and at no small cost to themselves. You should thank them by sending them your business and your friends' business.
Edith Keeler Must Die
The Patriot Act is just like the DMCA. It's proponents are afraid to use its most draconian measures for fear that the result would be the courts striking the whole thing from the books. The Patriot Act, like the DMCA, is a means to cower the defenseless. No one who has the means to defend themselves will be attacked with any controversial provisions in the Patriot Act. In other words, the prohibition against the media reporting seizures is irrelevent, because no one the media would care to report on will be targetted by the seizure provisions.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Now the cops want the bookstore to give them a list of all people who bought the book. Where's probable cause? Why should the cops know anything about my reading habits?
If we live in a climate where unpleasant books we buy bring us to the attention of the State, do we still have freedom of expression?
The State no longer will need to ban books. Ashcroft merely says "We will be subpoena'ing all bookstore records for purchasers of Book X."
As the article says, books are different from fertilizer.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.