Librarian Stands up to the Feds

Anonymous Coward writes "A librarian at Brandeis University forced the FBI to obtain a warrant to seize computers used to send threats. From the article: 'Federal Bureau of Investigation agents tried to seize 30 of the library's computers without a warrant, saying someone had used the library's Internet connection to send the threat to Brandeis. But the library director, Kathy Glick-Weil, told the agents they could not take the machines unless they got a warrant first. Newton's mayor, David Cohen, backed Ms. Glick-Weil up. After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge.'"

Comments

Re:Time to vote NO, but in what election?

[dada21]

I only vote for one person on every ballot. I vote for the one person who can make a decision the way I believe it should be made. I vote for the one person who understands my life, knows what my needs are, and can adjust the law to be realistic, moral and promote freedom not restrict it.

That person is me. I recommend voting for yourself on every ballot, straight ticket, every position. Vote NO to all referenda and judge retentions. Write yourself in and you'll be voting for the only person able to enforce the law the way you want it enforced.

Picture the next presidential election: Condi Rice 7%, Hillary Clinton 8%, Other 85%. I like that. That's my kind of mandate.

Re:Congratz

[gstoddart]

Mrs. Kathy Glick-Weil,

Thank you, for being a citizen. I wish more Americans would be more like you.

Oddly enough, it seems Librarians spend a disproportionate amount of time doing such things.

From what I can tell, as a group they're more concerned with your rights and liberties than most everyone else.

Support your local librarian.

Re:Why is this news?

[shalla]

Actually, this is significantly different from a police officer asking to search your car, as in most states it is illegal for library staff to turn over information on library patrons' resource usage without a warrant or unless the PAtriot Act is invoked. I can't speak for Massachusetts, but in the two states I've worked in, library records (including use of electronic resources) are specifically named in state privacy laws. I cannot give out that information without a warrant unless I have a warrant (or a national security letter).

I was annoyed with the coverage of this when it first ran because many news articles portrayed the library director as having a choice in the matter and choosing to impede the FBI. It would have been nice to see an article that ran that essentially said, "Library Director follows law and demands warrant so evidence not later thrown out of court or abused."

"clear and present danger" is NOT VALID

[SuperBanana]

Mr. Cohen said in an interview on Monday that he and Ms. Glick-Weil demanded the warrant because the FBI agents did not indicate that anyone at Brandeis faced a "clear and present danger." If there had been such a danger, Mr. Cohen added, agents probably would have seized the computers without even asking for them.

Uh...that's not how "clear and present danger" was ever meant to be used. The phrase comes from a 1919 US Supreme Court case on first amendment protected speech.

Incidentally, that case was overturned in 1969.

"Clear and present danger" was specifically NOT, as of 1969, a legitimate reason for punishing someone for speech. It certainly is not a legitimate reason for illegal search and seizure (ie, bypassing the court system.)

I hate it when people romanticize unconstitutional action; happens in the movies all the time. "You can't do that!" "Oh? Are you going to make me get a warrant to search this place? Little Timmy could be dead by then!"

Re:Why is this news?

[lar3ry]

The police ususally don't have the ability to force you to do things
like open the trunk of your car. However, they may ask, and they can
even lie to you ("I heard something moving in that trunk!") in order
to get you to voluntarily comply with their request.

One of the best pieces of advice that I've heard was that if you do
have contraband in your car and a police officer demands to search it
without a warrant, to simply get out of your vehicle, lock all the
doors, and close your door after putting your car keys into the car as
well. Since everything in the car is locked and you cannot get into
it, you have removed any occasion that the police officer may think
there is reasonable danger present to the officer in that he/she must
break into your vehicle (higher standard of proof required).

However, there ARE people that need less burden of proof. For
instance, said police officer may simply radio the Fish and Game
wardens that they suspect you have violated state hunting/fishing
laws. These people have the right to actually use a crowbar and force
your vehicle open without a warrant. Of course, they won't find any
illegal game/fish in your vehicle, but now that the car is opened and
subject to search, those other things in your car can be considered
fair game. (Pun not intended.)

A good lawyer (or perhaps even the public defender) can probably have
the evidence dismissed against you, but it's pretty shaky ground
you'll be standing on. Judges don't like denying evidence against
people that are clearly guilty (despite what you see on crime shows
nowadays).

Now, I'm not advocating people feel free to transport drugs or
automatic weapons. Actually, I'm advocating that people don't
transport illegal things in their vehicles! It's simply stupid to be
lulled into a false sense of security because you THINK the police
will be unable to search your car without a warrant.