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.
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society," wrote Justice Bender.
Mr. Bender, would you please run for Congress?
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
My computer store always asks for my name and address, even when I buy with cash. I usually tell them "No thanks" but one woman kept at it, so I gave her the address for Wrigley Field, heh heh.
Radio Shack was the original offender in this 'collecting your address to serve you better' BS, but it seems to be picking up steam as 'the thing to do'.
So, pay cash, and remember "3600 N. Clark Street, Chicago Illinois, 60657".
-----
My father is a blogger.
Think about how much time, money, and other resources the average person spends protecting their freedom: 2 minutes on Slashdot compaining. Now lets think about how much time, money and other resources these organizations spend trying to take away our freedon: 24/7/365, millions of dollars, any resource they can use (advertizing, lawyers, congress).
Who do you think will win this fight?
-... ---
(IANAL but...) freedom of speech has traditionally been interpreted as protecting a dialog of ideas (as opposed to a monologue). In other words, not only are your rights to express an idea protected, but also your right to receive ideas lawfully expressed by others. (Otherwise, the government could simply say: "Freedom of speech? Sure, talk all you want. Just step into this soundproofed room first.") Freedom of expression without reasonable freedom of channels of expression is more or less useless.
In this case, it seems the court found that, among other things, the warrant placed an undue burden on the bookstore in its role as a channel of constitutionally protected speech.That's Tattered Cover's big selling point with me (besides 4 floors of selection and a coffee bar). Big leather chairs everywhere to test-read your selections, floor-to ceiling wooden bookcases w/ step ladders all over, bookcases all the way up the stairwell... and a distinct shortage of clerks wandering the store asking you if they can help you every five minutes. Peace and quiet while shopping is a rare thing these days. If I can't find something, there's help desks readily available for me to ask.
Man, I can lose hours in there.
Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, will be quoted out of context on
if the government has a warrant there might not be much that can be done
Read the actual decision in the word document. It's pretty plain there that the expression of speech includes consuming speech without harassment, which implies a right to privacy. While it would be better explicit, this is what a woman's right to choose is (mistakenly, IMO) based on. (I'd prefer it be based on property rights, but that's a whole 'nuther argument).
There's a lot of constitutional scholarship that has found a right to privacy implicit in the other rights, including those expressed in the First Amendment. This decision attempts to set up a test, essentially that the hated "compelling state interest," must be determined in an adversarial proceeding before seizure occurs--that means not just the DA and a judge in a darkened room, but a hearing giving the affected party a chance to object. And on the basis of the facts of the case, the Court did not find compelling state interest sufficient to outweigh the constitutional harm.
The Supreme Court may yet overturn it, but it would be an interesting precedent if upheld. That would significantly curtail the ability of police to do various seizures without a suspect's knowledge. Since several of those things (e.g. wiretaps) have passed constitutional muster before, that's where I see this to be in danger of being overturned, rather than a lack of a right to privacy.
Does the freedom of speech include the freedom to listen to the speech of others?
Does the chilling effect of someone cataloguing that speech which you are privy to, and using it against you, abridge that right?
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Thinking in Java, Bruce Eckel
Do not touch -Willie
It's not quite the case. It was a subpoena, not a warrant.
A warrant is a document commanding police to search a given place and seize certain items found therein. A subpoena is a document on the court's authority commanding a person or entity to turn over certain documents to the court. It doesn't typically involve having cops go and search premises for those items.
When I serve a search warrant, I'm working under certain rules. Basically, if a person refuses to open a door after I've knocked and announced and waited the reasonable time required by law, then we knock the door down. If a person refuses to unlock a container that could contain the items named in the warrant, we break it open. If the person obstructs us, we arrest him for obstructing a peace officer.
If they're served with a subpoena and have some reason for not complying, they can try to have the subpoena quashed by the court-IIRC, this is what the bookstore did. Or they can refuse to comply without actually doing it the way the law requires, and that opens the door to contempt proceedings. But subpoenas can be quashed by a court, since the time factor common with warrants usually doesn't exist with subpoenas. They're not generally for evidence which will decay over time or be destroyed by a guilty party if not seized.