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."
protecting privacy is not "cool" any more...
sad day
FTA: the mayor called it "a blatant disregard for the Police Department"
When the police are breaking the laws (or sneaking around them) who do we ask to protect us?
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
"I followed the law. And because I followed the law, at the end of the day, the policemen's case is going to hold strong. Nobody is going to sue the library and nobody is going to sue the municipality of Hasbrouck Heights because information was given out illegally."
That's actually the best argument she can make. Any case prosecutors will have against this man will be much stronger because the library complied with the applicable law(s) when responding to a police request. What if that evidence had been thrown out because it was illegally, or at least questionably, obtained?
Teachers and librarians are the real heroes. They change the world without ever kicking down a door.
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
violation of fundamential civil right principles is far more heinous a crime
than any child molestation, rape, murder, or terrorist act.
but then, the population of that country called USA really doesn't give a damn
about that thing called liberty it gives drone-like lip service too.
never did really.
And journalists rarely let facts get in the way of a good story. So, I would caution people to not assume everything printed is correct. Nonetheless, to whatever degree it is true that a librarian was asked to break the law by the police, the librarian was in the right to refuse. She is likely to be punished, possibly severely, regardless. I doubt the city or the police will forget in a hurry, no matter who was in the right, and that should be the real point of concern. When revenge becomes more important than upholding the law, there is no law. It is a troubling cultural divide by zero error.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
are you serious?? You think the entire law of due process and the requiring of warrants should be overturned because of this case?
i never really thought having warrants and keeping the police in check was a bad thing....
'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police.
You don't say? That's precisely why that rule exists in the first place! Fucking morons.
From TFA:
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 at Tuesday's meeting.
What utter bullshit. She doesn't work for the police, and it is her job and her legal mandate to protect the privacy of people who check out books from her library.
These "borough officials" are nothing but a bunch of grandstanding politician assholes trying to make their careers by harassing a librarian who was doing her job the way it should be done. They should all be voted out of office.
Warrants are there for a reason.
What if the dangerous paedophile actually managed, through hard work and dedication, to get a job on the police force? Sure, the overwhelming majority of police are good, but it's definitely possible for ONE bad cop to get through. Should he be able to get your child's records without anyone even looking over his work to determine if it's 'warranted'?
Food for thought.
No, that's bullpoop. The police could have come up with the subpoena in minutes if there was sufficient cause. The woman in question is NOT in the position to make the policy decision that the information she could provide would be material in the case. That's a question for a judge.
Unless you are "fighting terror", an improperly conducted search will get thrown out by the courts and then the "bad guys" usually get a walk.
Why should there be an exception for "fighting terror?"
It is the mindset though. Look for more and more things to fall under the concept of 'fighting terror' as a way to get around due process and the Bill of Rights. I remember hearing some guy on NPR say some members of LA gangs were 'street terrorists'.
Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library [and its users] than helping the police
I think I'd actually be proud if someone said something like that about me.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Those who would sacrifice liberty over security, deserve neither security nor liberty.
-Benjamin Franklin
that the ones supposed to UPHOLD the Law are the first ones wanting to BREAK the Law.
Second - the Library director did the right thing. Why? Because if the information she gave was obtained without "due process", the pedophile could get free because of this. Now who would be the one to blame? The Library. Wonderful.
I'd pretty much tell the stupid police to just do their job and STFU.
What about the privacy of the people who didn't commit the crime ? What if the next step from the police was to search every house in the city and then arrest the person who had this book, would you be up for that ?
The problem here is the reaction of her superiors on the library board who apparently believed she should have given the police whatever they wanted without question.
Technoli
Far from being an "... absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter", this librarian correctly realized that it was a serious matter which she was not qualified or empowered to judge. She deferred to the courts, which are only appropriate and authorized arbiter of police search powers.
Bravo, Ms. Reutty!
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
Of course they did. Journalists file FOIA requests all day long, and have to wade through mountains of forms to get information that should be freely available to any citizen, if the governement wasn't fricking corrupt. Cops are supposed to have to do the same thing for data that isn't freely available. That's the law. And after filing dozens of FOIA requests for police reports, you bet your ass they jumped on it when the cops tried to pretend like they were above the law.
On top of that journalists are in a position where they can end up in posession of information that the government wants to know, and unlike librarians, they don't have the luxury of giving that info up if they want to continue in their careers. Strong and respected privacy laws are very much in their self interest.
And finally, journalists tend to be literate library affectionados, and, as such, are well disposed toward spunky, privacy-respecting librarians.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
If she hadn't forced them to follow the letter of the law, whoever this person was that broke the law initially could have turned around and used the illegal obtaining of his records in court to get the case thrown out.
That exact scenario has happened before, where these small-town cops get worked up, don't follow the rules, and it ends up hurting what could have been a simple, open-shut case if they had just had patience. I really wish I could post a link to the details (I've spent a lot of time in Jersey Boroughs) but usually there is little to no public record, things get lost, or safety nets are put in place.
Its really really sad actually.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
How come we never really hear much about it?
Um, are you shitting me? Like, are you really serious?
We hear about this ALL THE FUCKING TIME, especially on the internet (e.g., blogs).
Constantly.
More than we ever have before, and more every day. And it's not because there are "more abuses"; there's more people hunting for and collecting evidence about said abuses. Some of these people do it out of genuine concern. Most of these people do it because their political leanings are crystal clear.
And you know what? There aren't really any more or less "abuses" than there ever have been; there are just much easier ways to spread the word. That's what makes people believe we're heading down the primrose path to a fascist state and all this other crap.
Technology cuts both ways: it makes it easier for the government to abuse rights and freedoms, and it makes it easier for everyone else to find out and call them on it.
Why should there be an exception for "fighting terror?"
It is the mindset though. Look for more and more things to fall under the concept of 'fighting terror' as a way to get around due process and the Bill of Rights. I remember hearing some guy on NPR say some members of LA gangs were 'street terrorists'.
There shouldn't be an exception for "fighting terror" However since the middle of September 2001 the PATRIOT Act has legitimized many exceptions to due process in order to help the police of our nation "fight terror"
That is why you see so many in the enforcement business trying to get all kinds of different crime labeled as terrorism. That way they can just go arrest and hold people without having to justify their suspicions before the courts.
If it's that serious, you want a trail of evidence and iron-clad law-abiding police searches and questioning to bring you through prosecution. The fact that the police failed to get a subpeona for a situation where one would likely be needed (they wouldn't have to use it right away, only if the librarian put up a fight).
I applaud this librarian for forcing the police to do their job. Why, if everyone did this, we might actually have a trust-worthy government! Oh, the horror!
The article mentions that reps from a library association went to a meeting to show support for Reutty, but I think it might help if concerned citizens from around the country let their voice be heard.
Hasbrouck Heights Library website
Here is a list of staff, with the board of trustees at the bottom. I can't find individual contact lists for them, but sending snail mail to the library and putting their name would probably work.
Apparently the police didn't think it was even serious enough to bother getting a subpoena.
Certain facts were presented, no matter the original spin. The police did not have a subpeona, and the chief of the library did not give them the information requested.
The facts are what we are cheering. It doesn't matter whether she helped an alleged pedophile get away or not. (She didn't.) She helped protect liberty. That's more than most of us do in a lifetime.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
We have that show too. Its called "24". I think its a way to get people to be ok with torturing potential suspects. Pretty soon, you'll have Joe Average saying "Well, they should just torture the guy and find out what he knows. Why are they letting him have a lawyer?"
"Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police."
errr... call me stupid, but isn't that what her job supposed to be, protecting the library? I just don't get it... If she wanted to help the police, she'd be a neighborhood watch woman.
"Don't let fools fool you. They are the clever ones."
Citizens of the United States of America, you do realize you live in a fascist state, don't you?
The law is in place, she was justified in her technicalities, but she violated the spirit of law enforcement.
What the hell is "the spirit of law enforcement"? "Law enforcement" first and foremost requires the agents in charge of executing that duty to *follow the law*, right? The separation of powers spelled out in the Constitution isn't some 200+ year old idea implemented just to inconvenience the police, you know.
You should probably read up on cases such as Warren v. D.C. and Castle Rock v. Gonzales that clearly establish that the police have no duty to help or protect anyone. If they have no legal duty to help anyone, exactly how is anyone obligated to break the law to help them? Often, the police aren't even aware what the law is. I don't say that to belittle them, just that it's a fact - just this week, I spent about half an hour talking with a local cop about state concealed weapons permits. He was a nice enough guy, but he had absolutely no clue as to what the state requirements for obtaining one were, where weapons are and aren't allowed, which weapons are and aren't legal, etc.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Following the law is not a "misjudgement".
From the article:
... Reutty, the director for 17 years, now faces possible discipline by the library board. Members of the Borough Council have suggested she receive punishment ranging from a letter of reprimand in her personnel file to a 30-day unpaid suspension.
Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena.
You can't be serious!
What if I said:
"Michele Reutty didn't send me a Christmas card last year. This made me very sad and I got angry at some children. This was a blatant disregard for my feelings and resulted in harm to children. I suggest we put a letter of reprimand in her file or suspend her for 30 days."
You'd think I was nuts, right? Why? Well, she is under no obligation whatsoever to send a Christmas card to me. Now, here she is, having been pressured to do something she was under no obligation to do... and frankly, likely in breach of privacy laws as well. She said no. Good on her!
If people want a law that forces anyone to obey arbitrary instructions of police officers (hint: this might be a baaaad thing), then petition to pass one. Until then, she not only did nothing wrong, but she did the right thing. If the police need the information for an investigation, they should get a warrant. Until then, she's done the right thing. Shame on the council members who have suggested disciplinary action.
OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
There is this thing called "The Rule of Law" which basically means that the law always trumps irrational emotional appeals. If the police could make a good case for those records being absolutely critical, then they'd have no problem getting a warrant for those records. If they can't get a warrant, then they can't convince a judge that they need them, and therefore they don't.
This isn't some piddly local statute either.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
People tend to ignore it these days, but the Constitution is still the law of this country. Screw with the little laws as much as you like, but not that one.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Those who advocate more authority for the police are actually advocating a "police state" as opposed to a "Free nation".
Yes, there is nothing irrational about the desire for a police state. Nor is there anything irrational about the desire to live in a Free society. This is not about rational/irrational.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Apparently you're not a black man living in Chicago. or Las Vegas. Or Los Angeles. or any major metro area in the US. Or any small town.
Or a Latino living in any of the same cities.
Or a practicing Muslim attempting to pray in public.
I'm all for protecting out citizens from crime, but the fact of the matter is that a unchecked government is way more of a threat to society then any one person. Even 9/11 killed only a few thousand, when corrupt governments can kill and oppress millions. Libraries are especially protected, because they exist for free information. If a person is worried about the government looking at what they read, they will be influenced in their choices, and therefore the information is no longer free. This limits the freedom of speech, and that is the first step to a totalitarian government. We believe in freedom over safety because while it is easy for us to sacrifice rights for safety, history has shown that blood must often be shed to gain them back.
I give bread to the poor, they call me a saint.
I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a communist.
So does anyone know where to send e-mail (perhaps the state bar association) pointing out that Ms. Horn, a lawyer, is critizing the fact that the law was followed and perhaps Ms. Horn needs a refresher on the basics?
It is not the job of the police to prevent crime. That is no-one's job because as soon as you start entolling the importance of preventing crime (and we have, terrorism == crime) you are creating a power against freedom that is uncheckable. Everyone has the right to commit crime. No society can be free without that right. If you are caught committing crime you will be judged and you will lose your freedom - all your freedom - but that is after the fact; it doesn't deminish your freedom. All freedom has consequences. I have the right to free speech. I can say whatever I like to whoever I like - no-one will try to stop me, and if they do I am free to ignore them - but that does not mean that my speech will not have consequences. If I tell my boss he is an idiot he might fire me, or give me really shit work to do, or (more likely) steam off in a hissy fit and make me feel bad. If I tell people to go out and kill others I may be arrested and lose my freedom.
The police are not the Access Control Lists of society. They're not there to prevent you from doing things. They're there to aid in repremanding or removing you from society if you fail to abide by its laws. The fact that this results in some sense of the word "protection" is just an unfortunate coincidence. I say unfortunate because people have come to believe that this is what the police are for; to ensure no harm ever comes to them. The result is this learned helplessness that has led us down this garden path of voting people into power who promise to "smoke out the terrorists". They're openingly promising to pass laws that deminish our freedom and people are eating it up. It sickens me.
How we know is more important than what we know.
What kind of an argument is that? Because you had a somewhat irritating experience, therefore this privacy thing is too much hassle? Did you even read the examples I posted?
Making her call to see what it was did not protect or help her.
I see you completely ignored my examples. I guess I'll just have to give you some more.
You might say that your wife was not protected, but what if she (or some other wife, if these examples offend you or are otherwise not applicable) had checked out:
-a book on adultery or divorce (self-explanitory)
-a book on abortion (she doesn't want to have another kid, and would rather take care of it without you knowing)
-a book about a very serious medical condition she has just been diagnosed with. (She could have a myriad of reasons for not telling you, e.g. not wanting you to worry about it just yet because you're in the middle of some very delicate/stressful projects.)
-a book about a new hobby she's getting into (It might be a dangerous hobby and she knows you'll disapprove, or maybe she thinks you'll laugh and mock her about it, or maybe she just wants it to be a surprise when she gives you a hand-fired clay vase for Christmas)
-a book about lesbianism, or a book focused on a specific sexual fetish of some sort (if she doesn't think you'd be understanding, she damn well has the right to keep this secret from you)
-a book about a religion you do not subscribe to (if she wants to worship Shiva in private without being told by her conservative Christian husband that she's going to hell, that's her business.)
-a book on a strange or morbid subject that she checked out simply to satisfy her curiosity (she shouldn't have to explain or justify her reading habits to anyone. I know that I've checked out quite a few weird or morbid books out of mere curiosity, and I'd be pissed if someone told my family about it--even though it was merely innocent curiosity, I would now have to go through the hassle of explaining and justifying my reading habits, and there could still be some lingering doubts.)
I could go on and on. Point is, you didn't know whether your wife was being protected until after you knew the book's title. Yeah, you assumed it was a book for your 5-year-old, but since it was checked out on your wife's card you didn't know that for sure. Now, let me say that I do think that the library should offer a consent form to release your reading history, but your one small moment of irritation pales in comparison to the damage that could be done, to the lives that could be ruined if such spying was allowed. Your wife is a seperate individual, entitled to her own private life if she so chooses.
When my kid is old enough to have his own card, but still a minor, I suppose the librarians will protect his privacy be refusing to tell me what books he checks out, too.
As far as I know it doesn't apply to kids (few civil liberties do, it seems.) I seem to recall my mom calling up and doing some checking on my reading habits a few times. If it does in fact apply to kids (and my mom was just bluffing or our librarian just didn't care), that's another issue entirely--I'm talking about consenting adults who want to read in privacy. Don't you dare drag that despicable "it's for the children!" argument when it clearly does not apply to the issue at hand.
It's gone too far. Where did the common sense go? I think it left when the sense of entitlement and privacy arrived as a consequence of the warped ideology of the boomers.
Yup. You had to wait a few minutes while your wife called to ask about the book. The horror!
If anyone is warped, it's people like you who would rather we sacrifice every last one of our rights (which incidentally have existed for hundreds of years before the boomers) in the name of a small, and I mean VERY fucking small convenience. And to top it off, you actually call it "common sense." Natch.
You're so far detached from reality I will not be surprised at all if your reply consists of nothing but Biblical quotes which "prove" that God hates privacy.
'It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter,'
Well, if this case requires a JUDGEment as to how SERIOUS it is, maybe you should ask a JUDGE. Like you do... when you get a subpoena.
The librarian could misjudge the situation, and come under legal fire!
The police could misjudge the situation, and come under legal fire!
If you get a subpoena, its ok! Duh!
This pisses me off so much. The government HAS methods available to it for obtaining information, they ought to USE them, instead of complaining that the situation was 'too serious' for such methods.
Your
You have no idea how many criminals are walking the streets simply because of the technicalities.
I'd rather have some criminals walking the streets than have *the police turn criminal* and committing "technical" violations against innocent people.
You earlier said the library is a public place and it should be public info. So if *I* walk into your public library and I ask the librarian for the dates and titles of every book your 9 year old daughter has ever taken out, then the librarian should just hand that over to me?
If I happen to be a police officer and walk into the library *EMPTY HANDED*, should the librarian turn over the the dates and titles of every book your 9 year old daughter has ever taken out, just on my say-so?
A government that itself becomes criminal and ignores and violates the rights of people... violating the rights of the innocent and guilty indiscriminantly... a government that itself becomes a criminal is far more dangerous and harmful than any ordinary criminal person.
You earlier said 99% of police are good. Hell, lets forget the 1% of police and other government officials who are currupt or malicious. Lets imagine that 100% of police and government officials are good. Often the greatest dangers and worst violations are committed by well intentioned people simply trying to do their jobs and get the bad guys. It is often the most well intentioned of people who break the law and violate our civil rights and other such "technicalites" in their zeal to "get the bad guy".
Catching criminals the right way is more important than making it easier for police to catch criminals. Ensuring that the police operate with respect for individual rights, ensuring that the police operate within the law, ensuring that the police do not become the criminal, that is more important than making it easier for police to catch some ordinary criminal.
It would certainly be easier to catch criminals if any officer could arbitrarily break into innocent people's homes and search and seize innocent people's property. It would certainly be easier to catch criminals if any officer could arbitraily and forcibly extract blood samples from innocent people. It would certainly be easier to catch criminals if any officer could beat a confession out of innocent people.
But in *THIS* country we take the high road. Police are required to operate within the law. Police are required to operate within the Constitution. Police are required to respect Civil rights. Police are required to get search warrants and subpoenas. In this country our police operate "with one hand tied behind their back". And that is what makes this country great and noble.
If you dissagree with that, if you don't want the police to operate with one hand tied behind their back, I suggest you move to Somalia or Nigeria or someplace. The police over there are free to persue criminals - and suspected criminals - and personal enemies - with ruthless efficiency. No need for pesky judges over there. No pesky warrants and subpoenas getting in the way over there. No pesky Civil Rights getting in the way over there. No pesky "technicalites" over there. Police can most efficently catch and punish "the bad guys" over there, guilty or not.
she could just as easily allowed another bus bomber
I'd rather have our police respect "technicalities" (as you call them) and take that risk, than to destroy the fundamental and most noble principles that make America America. Terrorists can "attack our freedoms" and blow up a some busses or buildings and kill some people, but they are incapable of taking away any freedoms and they are incapable of destroying this country.
No, it is only people like you who can actually take away our freedoms, only people like you who can destroy this country.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
This sgtory has been spun in such a way as to ignore the central issue. She was protecting her library patrons rights and helping the police. What kind of case would they have if they didn't follow procedure? The creep might have gotten off scott-free. The police and the library might have been sued. So she added a few extra hours to the investigation. She should get a fucking medal, for doing her job, and also for doing the police's job.
The conspiracy nut in me wants to think this is all calculated to make people forget that police actually need a subpeona.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You have certain rights spelled out in the Constitution, as well as in many other documents; among them is the Fourth Amendment. ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.")
If that makes you feel secure, great! If it doesn't, too bad. There's no protection for feeling secure, any more than there's a protection for 'having a great life.' If you feel secure within the realm of protections afforded to you by law, or don't feel secure, that's your own business. The job of the police, and of government in general, are not to make you feel a certain way, and just because you feel insecure, it doesn't mean that they're not doing their jobs.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."