Slashdot Mirror
Library Chief Criticized for Requiring Subpoena
sudnshok writes "Hasbrouck Heights (NJ) Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena. Her lawyer explained, 'Reutty did the right thing... At no time did Michele Reutty say to any police officer or anybody else that she would not give the information if it was properly requested.' However, borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police. 'It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter,' Horn said."
It's called "due process". Or maybe you prefer the cops play judge/jury/executioner and shoot anyone who has checked out that library book just to be on the safe side.
Please refrain from reading anything ever again. In future, if you ever require an opinion please contact your local law enforcement authority and you will be issued one in due course. Do not give out this opinion to others as a) they don't want to hear it and b) they will source their own opinions from wherever they see fit.
Yours truly,
George Bush,
Prezident of the United Satest.
I hate printers.
A quick googling reveals that you can send your thanks and support to reutty@BCCLS.ORG.
I already have.
(Does anyone else just love that some cases are too important for proper legal procedure? They should have gotten warrants in the first place...)
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
If the police can commit crimes, so can the rest of us!
http://www.hasbrouck-heights.nj.us/#Municipal%20Ph one%20Numbers
Sounds like fun to me.
Any person who wants to raise a concern or stand up for what they believe in is a "troublemaker", and will be dealt with accordingly. It doesn't matter what it is, the fact remains that they oppose someone in power, and will be harassed unless there is massive public outcry (or lawsuits that prevent further harassment).
Also, this isn't limited to police. Any organization, church or business will have a certain code that, when broken, results in labeling the perpetrator a "heretic" or somesuch.
Also also, I'm not being Orwellian here. This is the way things have always been.
Let's tell these sociopathic assholes what we think of their attempts to trample on our rights.
e w_Jerseyf o.html
HASBROUCK HEIGHTS NJ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbrouck_Heights,_N
General Info - http://www.hasbrouck-heights.nj.us/general/townin
Mayor Ronald R. Jones
Borough of Hasbrouck Heights
320 Boulevard
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604 USA
Phone: (201)-288-4111
Police Chief Michael Colaneri
Hasbrouck Heights (Bergen County)
248 Hamilton Avenue
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604-1811
Phone: (201) 288-1000
Fax: (201) 288-1691
Bergen County Prosecutor's Office
10 Main Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Mon-Fri (201) 646-2300
After Hours (201) 646-2700
Also let's show Ms. Reutty our support!
Michele Reutty, Director
Free Public Library of Hasbrouck Heights
320 Boulevard, Hasbrouck Heights NJ 07604
E-mail: reutty@bccls.org
TEL: 201-288-0488
FAX: 201-288-6653
i am going to give her a call when i get done w/ work.
i gaurantee if the people involved get just a few dozen calls or emails it will make them think twice. please take a moment to show your anger and/or support.
It seems that most any time privacy issues are called into question, one group always retreats to the "how dare you interfere" concept. They consider the rules irrlelvent because "the good guys would never abuse their power". If it were up to them it would be a police state, where the police did not have to follow the same laws the rest of us do. But they forget, this is the exact reason we have those laws, to protect the people from abuse by the government. In a perfect world where the government was just and wise, those such laws would not be necessary. But the government is oftentimes neither just nor wise, and in that case I prefer to have the law on my side to protect me from the abuse.
Stripping the people of the protection from persicution to make the job of law enforcement simpler is proteting people's fredom and rights by taking them away.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
"If the police aren't abusing their powers and have a legal claim to the information then what's the problem here?"
That's what a warrant or a subpoena is for, establishing that the police have a legal claim to the information.
-HT
Library records which contain the names or other personally identifying details regarding the users of libraries are confidential and shall not be disclosed except in the following circumstances:
a. The records are necessary for the proper operation of the library;
b. Disclosure is requested by the user; or
c. Disclosure is required pursuant to a subpena [sic -- probably transcription error in the database] issued by a court or court order.
L. 1985, c. 172, s. 2, eff. May 31, 1985.
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
That's exactly right. The criminal has no right to privacy. But in this case the police were inquiring about a person suspected to be a criminal, not about a proven criminal. The police have to prove to a judge that a certain person is criminal, then they can get a warrant, and then they can get the info on that person's library habits.
Otherwise, if you do not follow this procedure, you might as well throw out the presumption of innocence and assume everybody is a criminal.
You need to install an RTFM interface.
There is no single legal argument that can put this librarian at fault for her actions under current law.
'nuf said.
(fuck the patriot act anyway)
That's right, but they do so passively, not actively. In other words, I am protected every time a criminal is removed from the general population and locked up. On the other hand, if someone breaks into my house while I'm home, I have to protect myself. SCOTUS has ruled twice recently that the police have no legal obligation to protect you. There is no law that says I have to be protected from criminals by the government.
Do you have ESP?
NO DIRECT EMAIL TO MAYOR OR COUNCIL MEMBERS
Cops & Politicians
From Hasbrouck Heights,NJ website
http://www.hasbrouck-heights.nj.us/index.html/
Chief of Police Hasbrouck Heights email: chief_colaneri@hhpd.com
Borough of Hasbrouck Heights email: info@hasbrouck-heights.nj.us
Librarian & Reporter
Michele Reutty (Super-Librarian) email: reutty@bccls.org
Merry Firschein (Intrepid Reporter) firschein@northjersey.com
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
Really want to thank her? Why not mail her $10 or something?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
Castle Rock v. Gonzales: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.ht ml
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
The only difference between the suicides a few weeks ago that was different from before was that more recent suicides succeeded. There were several dozen suicide attempts before. These particular suicides weren't a start, they were a culmination.
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
How about we contact the library and let them know we appreciate that she did her job?
http://www.bccls.org/hasbrouck/librarystaff.htm
Ms. Reutty's email is also on the contact page.
I think writing would be better... I don't think they'd like their email or answering machine slashdotted.
The site also has the names of the Board of Trustees, who seem intent on persecuting Ms. Reutty instead of supporting her.
Put your money where your mouths are. Do something!
No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
heh
:-)
> He said it could also take a while to process the warrant, and he would have to take me to the jail to wait.
Obvious bullshit, but you already know that
Ask if you are under arrest and if so why.
If told that you are not under arrest then say 'I take it I am free to go then'.
Here, I've corrected it for you. This is my pet peeve: the USA isn't the country which has the most freedom today. Try Sweden, Finland, Denmark or Norway if you're looking for the most freedom.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I don't know of US law, but if this was done in our country (Europe, Belgium), the guy would go free on trial.
I don't know the technical translation of the term, but information aqcuired in an illegal way, does not count. And it's even a reason to complete go free.
(example: woman murdered her child, woman was in a coma for 3 days, then woke up,police questions her and holds her 48hours after that. They reasoned that the 48hours of arrest didn't begin when they put her in the hospital when she was in a coma.
Lawyer says there was a mistake made by the police, holding and questioning her longer than 48hours, or whatever it was. She goes free, although she murdered and even admitted it. Not perfect either, but the police is not above the law.)
It's obvious to anyone who is awake - that the USA is moving (very quickly right now) towards a totalitarian state. And it's only when someone steps up to the plate and shows some "balls" that the totalitarian process stalls, and slows down. Libraries have always been attacked by the elite and their puppets - the list of books censored and taken out of libraries in the USA is long. It's ggo to see this librarian as well as the assoc. stand up to the "machine". It's interesting that the cops (and the elite) in the USA are so "concerned" here. Tens of thousands of children have been raped by priests in the USA. The cops and the elites always protected the above priests - as well as the church officals. In one case the cops refused to investigate -until the raped child committed suicide.
Wasn't it in the eighties during Reagan's time that a bill was passed that removed the requirment for NEWS programs to offer balanced reports and present opposing views. Once that pesky requirement was out of the way your News shows were alot more entertaining and a whole lot less informative.
The great CBC sure did a lousy job reporting this information to you. It was the "Equal Time Rule" that was rescinded. That Federal law required broadcasters to donate an equal amount of time to any political opposition candidates. If one candidate bought an hour of advertizing the broadcaster had to provide an hour to his opponent. This has clear problems. What if there are three candidates? Ten? How can a broadcaster be forced by the government to give up their airtime free for a particular candidate(s)? There were clear constitutional issues with the law.
There has never been any law requiring news media to present balanced reports. Newspapers in the US have a long history of presenting the news as they see it, independent of government rules.
I do have a problem with a biased news organization constantly claiming they are "fair and balanced" when they are anything but balanced. Seems like false advertizing.
Or you could contemplate the fact that they got your name through either:
This has precident. In the UK when we had our terrorism scare from the IRA many Irish people were arrested and fitted up for crimes they had no involvement. During the "interogation" many gave the names of people they knew had no involvement in terrorism just to end the pain. They selected these people because had they named real people they suspected of being terrorists, they and their family would die horribly. Many of those people got the same treatment.
The common joke at the time was "innocent until proven Irish". The only thing that's changed is skin colour and that only seems to be making this problem far worse as it goes beyond sectarianism into pure racism. Arab == terrorist in your eyes. How can any of them be innocent...etc etc etc?
Sorry to post this here, as it's not really a legit response, but here is the contact page for the library system. Be sure to send in an email or give a call to the Bergen County Cooperative Library System in support of Michele Reutty.
Is it just me, or are librarians like the only ones taking a unified stand against the coming police state??
http://www.bccls.org/hasbrouck/contactus.htm
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
So the defense of the happenings at Gitmo boils down to "Evil? Yes, but not as evil as other places." Perfect. Welcome to America, less evil than N. Korea.
Maybe the US could set its sights a bit higher and shoot for not evil, not less evil? Maybe at least follow international law(i.e. Geneva Conventions)?
New Yorker interview of someone who has visited Gitmo as a report
"Under the Geneva Conventions, which the Bush Administration decided not to abide by in their treatment of the Guantánamo prisoners, they would have had to do things very differently. The 1949 Geneva Convention requires the establishment of a "competent tribunal" to determine, on a case-by-case basis, if there is any doubt, whether a detainee should be designated a P.O.W. But when U.S. forces captured Al Qaeda and Taliban soldiers in late 2001 and early 2002, in Afghanistan, they were never given individual status-review hearings. As a result, critics say, a number of non-combatants were swept up along with them. If Geneva was followed the U.S.-held prisoners would not have had to answer questions beyond their name, rank, and serial number. In most cases, Geneva disallows any harsher treatment for prisoners who are non-cooperative. So the whole system of rewards and punishments that has been devised at Guantánamo would be out of bounds. Geneva also specifically bars coercive interrogations."
[snip]
"they bent over backward to allow access to a number of fascinating scenes in Guantánamo, including allowing me to attend one of the Administrative Review Board hearings in which detainees can challenge their status as a danger to the U.S. In the one I attended, the detainee, whose name I had to agree not to release, demanded to see the evidence that the U.S. had against him, so that he could refute it. But much of the evidence, U.S. military authorities told him, was classified, and he would not be allowed to see it."
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
The great CBC sure did a lousy job reporting this information to you. It was the "Equal Time Rule" that was rescinded. That Federal law required broadcasters to donate an equal amount of time to any political opposition candidates. If one candidate bought an hour of advertizing the broadcaster had to provide an hour to his opponent.
I'm sorry to inform you that you were close... but what he was refering to what was called the "Fairness Doctrine".
Wikipedia has a good article on it : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
The summary of the article is "The Fairness Doctrine is a former policy of the United States's Federal Communications Commission. It required broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance, and to present such issues in an honest, equal and balanced manner."
The only reason I knew the name was because I remembered it being done. It was done so that Rush Limbaugh's show could exist.
BTW before accusing anyone of doing a lousy job, at least get your facts right (Just pokin fun).
Regards,
Bill
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
No, PRIVATE information is private. It is yours. If I call up AT&T and they give me your DUF information, they are in violation of Federal laws (Telecommunications Act of 1996 is one). If I call up Citibank and they give me your CC details, they are in violation of other federal laws. If one of the credit reporting agencies gives my information away without my authorization, they are in violation of federal law. Data collected on you illegally is not thiers any more than your TV belongs to the thief who stole it from your livingroom. Why can data collection services sell it, because due to a loophole Congress is trying to close, it's illegal for companies to give you that information, but not for you to have it. Other information - your appearances in court, ownership of a house, birth date - public record type stuff is another matter.
Second I did not say that she should give out everyone's records but if the police have a good reason for wanting a particular record she should cooperate.
Who's opinion should she defer to for a 'good reason'? That's the very essence of the supena/warrent system. She doesn't have to defer to anyone's opinion [it's not the judges opinion she has to defer to, it's his ruling]. She has to follow a set protocol which is clearly defined in both the US Constitution, and in 200 years of case law.
The library policy is a guideline for behavior meant to protect there patrons but those rules must be interpreted and it seems obvious where the library stands on this situation as they were talking about a reprimand and a possible 30 day suspension for her.
Um, no. How about state law:
And just so we don't get confused:Now, can we discuss how exactly the Board of Directors of the library can complain about her behavior? Oh right, they are elected and appointed officials. If they do anything to her, they are going to have every ACLU lawyer camped out on their doorstep just dieing to take a crack at them.
ACLU: Why did you suspend her?
Board: Because she didn't give out record information when the police asked.
ACLU: Did they provide a supena?
Board: No.
ACLU: So she followed the legal requirement of L.1985, C.172, 2(c) - which requires a supena prior to the release of that information to the police?
Board: Um
ACLU: So, in the opinion of the board, Michele Reutty should have violated state law, rather than follow it?
It goes downhill fast from there.
This isn't a case of some librarian with a privacy bug up her ass, it's someone following the letter and the spirit of the law, and having over zelous cops asking her to break the law, and a moronic board responding in typical gutless elected official fasion.