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.
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.