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.
is the death shriek of an innocent server running Apache on a PII 450 somewhere in central Colorado... ;)
May God have mercy on Tattered Cover's admin.
"The prosecution can bite my shiny, metal ass. Case dismissed."
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.
i like that name.
makes me want to start a computer company called Dented Boxen
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.
"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."
For those of you not from Colorado. The Tattered Cover is a bookstore chain out here in Colorado that specializes in all sorts of books over all sorts of subjects. The two stores that I am aware of (there may be more) are at least three, maybe for fours. There are not a used book store and the can be said to be larger than any Barnes and Nobles that I know of.
From a computer books perspective they are neither the best nor the worst but certainly they do carry them.
Beware the wood elf!!!
It's time to close the "book store loophole," where criminals can purchase "how to" books that contain instructional information on committing illegal acts without any type of background check.
Do it for the children.
Every time I excercise my second amendment rights by purchasing a firearm, I am required to fill out a government form with all sorts of personal information. The seller is then required to get permission from the FBI and Colorado Bureau of Investigation to complete the transaction.
The government has illegally been keeping these records. After being conditioned that this is "reasonable," -- often by first amendment extremists -- why should I give a flying rat's ass if it happens to other people?
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.
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.
...I'd appreciate someone pointing me to the background for this story...
OK, here's the story. The local police busted a meth lab and found how-to drug manuals in a trailer, along with receipts from the bookstore. But the receipts didn't name the purchaser of the books, so the local DA subpoenaed the bookstore's customer records. The bookstore fought the subpoena and won.
(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.http://www.cobar.org/CFwebFiles/Content/dspOpinion . fm?OpinionID=560
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
One question:
Can you imagine Barnes & Noble, Borders, or Amazon.com doing what the Tattered Cover has done?
When I first read this, I thought: "That's very strange. Why shouldn't the police be able to get the book buying records of a legitimate criminal suspect? They can get phone company records and credit card records, right?"
Pages 9 and 10 of the ruling make it clear:
---
[Officer Goin] and DI McFarland then served the Tattered Cover with a DEA administrative subpoena. [...] Using such a subpoena was ordinarily a successful technique for DEA officers, though such a subpoena lacks any legal force or effect.
[...]
INSTEAD OF ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN AN ENFORCEABLE SUBPOENA, Officer Goin approached prosecutors from the Adams County District Attorney's office to get a search warrant for the Tattered Cover. Several prosecutors at the Adams County DA's office refused to sign off on the warrant, voicing concerns about its scope and subject matter. [...]
Without informing the Adams County DA's office, Officer Goin sought approval for his search warrant from the Denver DA's office. As approved by a Denver DA, the warrant authorized a search of the Tattered Cover for information related to the transaction in question, and for records of any other transaction involving Suspect A during the thirty-day period before the police searched the trailer. A Denver county court judge then approved the warrant.
---
So, basically the Officer was a dope who tried to do an end-run around the law. Oops!
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
The court's decision is chock full of some very significant ideas and quotes from previous cases, many of which directly apply to another free speech issue - the DMCA.
For example: "Without the right to receive information and ideas, the protection of speech under the United States and Colorado Constitutions would be meaningless."
Or: "Everyone must be permitted to discover and consider the full range of expression and ideas available in our 'marketplace of ideas.'"
Footnote 14 in the text of the decision is an absolutely brilliant quotation of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis regarding the "freedom to think as you will and speak as you think".
The decision is well worth reading. It's not in some sort of complex legalese. Far from it, it is very clearly stated.
-h-
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?
Note that under the so-called "Patriot Act", not only will the FBI be able to seize these kinds of records, but it will be illegal for the media to report on any such seizure. How's that for the ability to rewrite history, Soviet-style?
Details here.
The FBI was never here, go about your business.
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
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.