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."

Comments

Protecting privacy

[tekspot]

protecting privacy is not "cool" any more...

sad day

Re:Protecting privacy

[The Snowman]

protecting privacy is not "cool" any more...

I like the line "...said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police." What, am I supposed to disagree with this? Hell yeah I want her to protect the library and its patrons and only help police when necessary. If it takes a subpeona, so be it. If she can help the police without compromising customers' privacy, that's cool too.

I was talking today about the recent theft of veterans' data and the recent trend of theft of personal data in general. Yes, I am one of those unlucky veterans. Sigh. Anyway, this really is not a privacy issue so much as a Congress issue. Until they force banks, phone companies, etc. to protect our privacy through common sense legislation, we will have personal records stolen with little to no accountability and police demanding our personal records from libraries and elsewhere (or the NSA demanding our records from AT&T). The worst part is, nobody seems to care. It is a non-issue in the news. It happens, but never ignites the flame of public debate and outcry. We care more about Jolie's new baby than our phone records. Sad.

Re:Protecting privacy

[dbIII]

protecting privacy is not "cool" any more...

And neither is due process it appears. How long will it be before we bring Saddam's methods of running prisons home after giving them a try in Iraq and Cuba? People already disappear without charge or trial - and we need to get back to due process again before things go too far and the suspects start turning up dead.

Re:Protecting privacy

[Dorceon]

Obviously it was the police department 's misjudgement of the serious of the matter. Otherwise they would either have got a subpoena (if it was actually important) or not bothered (if it wasn't).

Re:Protecting privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what happens in a police state. You Americans are in a very bad way and unfortunately the majority of citizens in your country are too self-absorbed to see past their own noses and that is why the politicians/big business are getting away with the hijacking of your country.

Wise up and take it back before its too late.

Re:Protecting privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

"I like the line "...said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting her library than helping the police."

Interesting how today's government officials habitually speak in the 'ad hominem tense' of anyone who opposes them, isn't it? In a world in which uni-brows don't make police chief that would have read "more interested in protecting her library patrons' rights than helping police efficiency."

Re:Protecting privacy

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

I would damn well hope she's more interested in protecting her library... she's a *Library Director*.

If she were a *Detective*, maybe I'd expect her to be more interested in helping the police.

Well, since congress has been co-opted into being acting agents of the MPAA, it should be no surprise that some enforcement folks expect to be able to commandeer the investigative efforts of any & all public personnel, on a whim.

I'm glad this lady got it right.

Re:Protecting privacy

[guruevi]

If you didn't know, a lot of those people are already dead. Look what happened in Gitmo a few weeks ago: they started commiting suicide and more will follow. What would you do if you were sitting there for 3-5 years and no hope of ever getting out or even getting a trial.

Re:Protecting privacy

[Wordsmith]

There have been plenty of cases where people (re)gained rights without revolution - assuming that we're not talking about a loose definition of the term that equates to any sweeping change. Slavery ended, and so did government-institutionalized segregation. Women got the right to vote. The Japanese were allowed out of their internment camps. McCarthy's blacklisting stopped. Portions of the PATRIOT act were scaled back.

The lovely thing about a Republic is that legislators DO have some incentive to listen to the public, and respond when the public really wants something enough. Corporatism muddies the process substantially, but ultimately, the politicians still need our votes.

That being said, the historic trend is for governments to take more and more rights away - until it's no longer a given that the rights that were once enjoyed are natural to have. It's up to the public to be diligent and prevent that.

Re:Protecting privacy

[ResidntGeek]

Those are good points. That said, almost all those instances you mentioned required trade-off. When the slaves were freed, states lost their sovreignty. When segregation ended, the government gained the right to regulate private businesses to an insane extent. When the patriot act was scaled back, it just gave retarded neocons the right to say "See? we compromised... we gave you back some of your provisions, now let us keep some of ours!"

People can definitely regain some rights without revolution, but I think it may be impossible to regain all rights in general. The slaves, gladiators, and POWs of Rome lived more and more crappily until the Empire fell apart at the seams. The American colonies had to fight a war just to fix the tax system, which they'd fought continuously to reform for decades through the proper channels. The Berliners had to physically kick down the wall in 1991 to finally see their relatives. The people of the USSR managed to get their leaders to partially convert the Union to capitalism, which led to its fall, but their lives just got worse.

Re:Protecting privacy

[Gryle]

With due respect, I don't think this is just an American problem, I think it's a global issue. Goverments, especially first world governments, seem to be tightening the grip on their citizens. America's issue is that it still claims to be a beacon of freedom and civil rights for the world, while the Constitution is being slowly eroded. The contrast is starker because of America's claims about herself.

Re:Protecting privacy

[1u3hr]

Obviously it was the police department 's misjudgement of the serious of the matter. Otherwise they would either have got a subpoena (if it was actually important) or not bothered (if it wasn't).

They DID get a subpoena -- they're just bitching that the librarian actually made them do that. It took a couple of hours; and it was all in aid of IDing a guy who made sexual remarks to a girl outside the library -- something that should be followed up, but not obviously worth throwing away the rule book for to get him faster.

Re:Protecting privacy

[lonecrow]

"...It is a non-issue in the news..."

I thought you yanks got rid of all your news shows and replaced them with infotainment years ago. 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.

Up here in Soviet Canuckistan our state run news on CBC seems allot more balanced then the slhock coming from your Theo-Coporatocracy.

I suppose there are a few outfits down there trying to deconstruct the propaganda http://www.fair.org/ for example.

Re:Protecting privacy

[locust]

The fact that slavery eventually ended is a small comfort to those who were slaves. Do you just say 'my bad' to the Japanese who were interned, or the people whom were destroyed by McCarthy?

But really, your argument implies that the public was against each of the things you mentioned and it was just those legislators who were wrong. As though if they had listened to the public it would have all been better. They were listening to the public. Thats how we got strange fruit hanging from the trees in the deep south. The role of the gov. in this respect is to protect the minority from the tyrany of the majority. The howling mob reacts blindly and when it goes after blacks, or japanese, or communists (real or imagined), or women, or arabs, or whomever, those people are shielded from its fury. It is the mark of the failure of government when we have to pay these people reparations for things we did to them that are/were clearly wrong.

Re:Protecting privacy

[Saint Fnordius]

These rules about requiring subpoenas are a result of data theft in earlier times. It is supposed to prevent a police officer from abusing his position to collect sensitive information. All too often it's forgotten that there have been cops who will dig up dirt to be used for personal gain. Who's to say the cop wasn't trying to intimidate his sister's boyfriend? The subpoena says it.

That's the real stupidity here: the system worked like it was supposed to, but because the cops were too careless to ensure they had a proper subpoena beforehand, they are trying to shift the blame to the library director. She on the other hand was ensuring that neither the library nor the police would be open to a technicality.

That's the real irony: she helped the cops cover their asses, and they're pissed because she knew their resposibilities better than they did.

Re:Protecting privacy

[Eivind Eklund]

It's not even obvious it should be followed up. There is no "right not to be offended".

Re:Protecting privacy

[forgotten_my_nick]

> the company I've kept that got me into this mess.

Well if you bothered to actually read the documents from Gitmo you would find that nearly everyone there has never been charged of crime, that the vast majority released so far as totally innocent spent 2+ years there. Numerous reports of torture and deaths under dubious circumstances.

Or do you just regurtigate the same crap FoxNews et al spew out.

Re:Protecting privacy

[chickenandporn]

Requiring a subpoena -- requiring that the full procedure be followed -- ensures that this procedure will only be done when it's truly necessary. If it's too easy, it becomes just like "rounding up the usual suspects" as a means of investigation.

"We have a peeping tom, so be sure to check for him at the library, hockey rink, baseball park, grab his vehicle tags, cross-reference his EZ-Pass (transponder-based toll device) find out the times he passes on/off the GSP, see if he has too many or too few assets and salary, credit report, job hours (and when he reports late), check airline tickets, and see if his family were members of the Communist Party..."

Re:Protecting privacy

[indifferent children]

If she were a *Detective*, maybe I'd expect her to be more interested in helping the police.

I understand what you're saying, but is it too much to ask that our police be interested in protecting our rights? Our system isn't supposed to be adversarial to the point where the police and prosecutors are allowed to get as bent and dirty as the defense team.

Re:Protecting privacy

[Anonymous Coward]

Goverments, especially first world governments, seem to be tightening the grip on their citizens.

Let's call a spade a spade: we're talking about oppression. Using terms like "tightening the grip" or "cracking down" (another favorite) implies that there is something wrong, unnatural, or immoral about freedom in the first place -- as if us commoners have been getting away with it for this long and it's about time government "tightened the grip". These are propaganda terms because they dilute the true reality of the situation. If you turn on the TV, you will see them used over and over in place of the correct term (oppression).

Don't be afraid to label your rulers how they deserve to be labeled. When they "limit" or "crack down" on your god-given (natural) right to freedom, that's called oppression. Every government oppresses by definition (government being the organization holding the unique "right" to employ coercion against you) -- the only question is to what extent.

Re:Protecting privacy

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

I hear you there, and in all honesty I have a hard time answering that one. I know this makes me a tool of the man and all that, but I want criminals brought to justice, and I'm not without sympathy for law enforcement. In an ideal world, there would be no tension between our fourth amendment rights and law enforcement's capacity to convict criminals, but there'd be no intentional fouls in basketball either.

I guess I expect the police to be interested in gathering evidence that criminals would like to keep from them, and I assume that motive will inspire a certain amount of infringement. I feel secure enough in my rights without the police making a priority of them, though; in domestic criminal cases, our privacy rights are secured at the prosecution stage more than at the evidence gathering stage - the penalty for violations by law enforcement being the exclusion of the evidence in question.

Now I have a hard time seeing the value of a suspect's library records in the prosecution of a crime, but hey, if the police want to chase that line, fine with me. I don't expect them to get subpoenas and warrants in advance for every bit of evidence they want to gather; I expect them to do this only when they encounter obstacles or are on territory where the evidence would spoil without a warrant.

This story interested me because I'm more worried about trustees of our private data being loose with it. Police have always sought to uncover data with exceptional eagerness. The library director's actions show exactly the respect for privacy that I want to see, so I'm happy.

Now wanna know what *really* scares me? How about the *first amendment* rights we're losing for the sake of something as frivolous as the entertainment industry's right not to innovate?

Re:Protecting privacy

[Just Some Guy]

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.

First, I too doubt that any such law ever existed. Second, if it did, good for Reagan! I don't want a news report on, say, holocaust deniers to have to present a balanced report of the opposing view. Imagine if all of Slashdot's criticisms of Fox News were required by law of all the other stations, too.

Up here in Soviet Canuckistan our state run news on CBC seems allot more balanced then the slhock coming from your Theo-Coporatocracy.

It's not surprising that Canada's national news will echo the sentiments of someone who describes the US as a "Theo-Coporatocracy". Given their government's current view of US politics, I would not have expected otherwise.

Re:Protecting privacy

[rmhartman]

The money quote is this: "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."

She wasn't "protecting the library", she was protecting the case! If she had "cooperated" and just given the information the case could have been tossed for illegally obtained evidence. If nothing else it would have been grounds for an appeal.

She did the right thing and they can not even recognize it.

Re:Protecting privacy

[glesga_kiss]

Spend a lot of time contemplating the hatred I've followed, and the the company I've kept that got me into this mess.

Or you could contemplate the fact that they got your name through either:

• Cash given for "information"
• Someone elses torture

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?

Re:Protecting privacy

[IAmTheDave]

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

Re:Protecting privacy

[IAmTheDave]

Oh, the Mayor - Mayor Ronald R. Jones - is the man accusing Ms. Reutty of obstructing the police. Further, she faces punishment for... I don't know... following the law.

Mayor Ronald R. Jones - (201) 288-4111

http://www.hasbrouck-heights.nj.us/

Re:Protecting privacy

[grimwell]

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."

Re:Protecting privacy

[forgotten_my_nick]

I wish I could mod you up as the parallels between Northern Irelands Internment and Gitmo are frightning.

There is some good reading on Internment here..

http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/intern/index.html

Basically people who had nothing to do with terrorism were rounded up (intentionally or due to clerical errors/mistaken identities) and put into a camp where they were tortured and held without any rights. The actions of the 1970's did nothing but increase the number of people joining the IRA which in turn led to more pointless killings.

The only way to fight terrorism is to combat the cause they stand behind. Again the IRA is a good example, had little to no support in Ireland until the Civil rights issues in the 60s-70s. Once the civil rights issues were addressed they have more of less faded away in relation to the support they get.

Until you address the issues of what the people in the Middle East are upset about your going to continue this circle for violence for a long time (Ireland went on for over 40 years). Despite what some people think it is not a case of "they hate our freedoms".

Re:Protecting privacy

[DavidTC]

Actually, I can kinda see the police's point, although it depends on what they were asking for.

Because, as far as I can tell, they weren't asking for library records. They wanted to know who a certain person was, and possibly knew he'd checked out a book near that time. That would be in the computer, but the librarian could hand over a list of the few men who checked out library books in that time frame without actually saying what those books were.

I'm all for restricting the usage of checkout information from the police, expecially 'Well, here's the list of people who checked out these Evil(TM) books'.

However, 'What is the name of the person who left here between 2 and 2:15, we need to question him' is not really the same kind of request. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that's a library, or any presumed judgements on him because of his reading materials. It could have been almost anywhere.

OTOH, this is what law enforcement gets for acting like asses, in general, to libraries, with secret warrants and gag orders and profiling of people who check out certain books. Go in and make a simple request that isn't a privacy violation, and you end up waiting twenty minutes while getting the paperwork straightened out.

It's the same principle that I take while interacting with the police...if they want me to help them, they can stop all their little 'tricks' that play on accussed criminal's trust, because I'll be damned if I'm going to spend the time figuring out if any request of theirs is legit or a trick because they think I'm guilty of something, or even a trick to get me to lie about something to them, which they've managed to make a crime. They get my name and I'll even prove my identity to them, but that's all the courts say I have to do. I don't have to tell them which way someone ran past me until they get a subpoena issued and present it to me.

And it looks like libraries have started doing the smae thing. Have fun enforcing the law in a country where no one will help you without being required to by a court order because no one fucking trusts you. It really is getting close to that point.

Re:Protecting privacy

[Dun Malg]

There's no "right to not be offended", but everyone has a right to feel safe.

Except that they don't, any more than they have the right to be unoffended. I know people who don't feel safe if they see a negro drive by in an automobile in their lilly white neighborhood (though "mexicans" are apparently OK, so long as they have a lawn mower in their truck). I know people who feel perfectly safe standing in front of a liquor store at 1AM amongst the crackheads and whores on West Blvd. Basically, feeling safe isn't a "right", it's a subjective state of mind. I contend that until someone actually does something illegal that the police shouldn't be nosing around. "Think of the children", people will surely say, but there's nothing special about other peoples' children that justifies extra police nosiness.

Re:Protecting privacy

[spasm]

It doesn't matter if he's a psycho rapist or not - the role of the cops is to find out if he broke the law right then. If making sexually suggestive remarks to your daugter is an offence in your jurisdiction, then the information they need to charge him (or place a restraining order on him) is in your daughter's statement. If he has a prior record as a psycho rapist and it's part of his parole conditions not to make suggestive remarks to young ladies then the information they need to charge him with breach of parole is in his police/parole record (which they have..) and your daughter's statement. In neither case is knowing what books he's borrowed from the public library going to make any difference at all - it's just the police being halfwits.

Which is not to say guys making suggestive remarks to women is not a problem - quite the opposite. However, I've usually found that the rest of the frat boys don't think you're so hot when you have multiple restraining orders out on you. And the cops don't need your library records to make that happen..

Re:Protecting privacy

[Some_Llama]

"I'd say the police have as much right as anyone else to question him (assuming no crime was committed). "WTF did you think you were doing?" sort of thing. Social pressure is an important part of the social glue that keeps society together."

You are SOOO right, this is why I am glad that the police stopped my vehicle, put me in handcuffs in the back of a police car and then searched my car thoroughly for 30 minutes while repeatedly asking me where "the dope was hidden".

Apparently (the cop told me) I was not supposed to be on that side of town and asked me what I was doing there (the answer, visiting a friend who lived in the neighborhood).

Luckily he let me off with a warning and made sure to let me know that "I owed him one for letting me go".

I'm glad we have police who are willing to go the extra mile and question people who don't behave the way the police believe they should behave, or visit places deemed "appropriate".

(true story).

Oh the Pain

[schneidafunk]

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?

Re:Oh the Pain

[QuantumG]

I don't ask anyone to protect me. It's not the job of the police to "protect and serve" no matter what their slogan says. It's the job of the police to investigate crime and arrest suspects so that the courts can accurately determine their guilt or innocence.

Re:Oh the Pain

[terrymr]

There's buttons here : https://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlin ks/radicalbutton.htm

The phrase "Radical Militant Librarian" was used by the FBI to describe exactly this situation where somebody actually insisted on following the law.

Re:Oh the Pain

[Saedrael]

What, exactly, is your point? The police are supposed to be protecting you by investigating crime and arresting suspects. Laws don;t exist in a vacuum; they are designed (or they should be) to protect you.

Re:Oh the Pain

[Almost-Retired]

Then its time for the 4th of those famous boxes to be used. I'm sure you are all familiar with that saying re the 4 boxes to protect and defend liberty? Soap, ballot, jury, and ammo.

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Oh the Pain

[iminplaya]

...who do we ask to protect us?

El Chapulin Colorado!

Re:Oh the Pain

[gogoGodzilla]

Yeah they are supposed to be doing a lot of things however they have a habit of bungling investigations. Now by this librarian doing his job he in effect forced the police to do their job and now maybe the evidence, if any, will hold up in court thereby making him a hero...not a terrorist.

Re:Oh the Pain

[wordsofwisedumb]

When the police are breaking the laws (or sneaking around them) who do we ask to protect us?

Librarians.

Re:Oh the Pain

[Trailer Trash]

Laws don;t exist in a vacuum; they are designed (or they should be) to protect you.

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.

Re:Oh the Pain

[Irish_Samurai]

This is absolutely correct.

To assume that some government entity can protect you at all times from any variation of opposition is ignorant. A free society is one where the people are empowered to enforce their perspective without marginalizing anothers right to the same.

This concept requires (or assumes) that any person willing to exercise this right will stand up in court to defend their actions, and accept the consequences, resulting from it.

Unfortunately we (Americans) have become a nation of cowards and sycophants. We do not recognize our responsibilities to this concept, nor do we behave in a manner that exemplifies it.

You must be prepared to do what you think is right, and to suffer the consequences of those actions as dictated to you by the society at large. If you curb your behavior to conform with that of the perceived majority, you will never realize how much power you really have.

Quite often, doing the right thing equates to being analyzed by police forces, imprisonment by "peace keeping" forces, and ostrization by the socially accepted.

The choice is yours. Exhibit behaviors congruent with your beleifs, or be subdued in order to continue acting "freely."

Re:Oh the Pain

[John Courtland]

Castle Rock v. Gonzales: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.ht ml

Re:Oh the Pain

[menace3society]

He was talking about something else entirely, but certain of Juvenal's remarks are apropos to all free societies: "Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?" Who will guard against the guardians, indeed.

Re:Oh the Pain

[geminidomino]

Way to miss the point.

The rules about illegal search and seizure, and cruel and unusual punishment, help keep those guardians of the public from themselves becoming dangerous in their quest.

This entire story is about those "guardians of the public" (yank-yank) demonizing a librarian who insisted on FOLLOWING those rules about illegal search and seizure.

Unfortunately for you, in the modern world, naivete is too dangerous to be endearing anymore.

Key quote from TFA

[daveschroeder]

"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?

Re:Key quote from TFA

[foreverdisillusioned]

I'm not sure it actually is the best argument she could make, because it almost lends weight to the retards like b0nj0m0n (see his -1 Troll post below) who say that the law should be changed to allow police to do this. IMO, the best argument she could've made was "If the police had just cause for this information, they could have gotten a warrant for it. They did not have a warrant, so I was inclined to believe that they did not have just cause, at least not yet. In this country we have a long-standing precident that people are innocent until proven guilty and a long-standing precident of seperation of powers, including judicial oversight of law enforcement. Anyone who believes that I should have violated my patron's civil rights just because the police said I should needs to either grow some fucking balls and realize this is America, where freedom comes above absolute safety, or move to a "safer" totalitarian country like China, where I hear their police have all kinds of powers that ours lack."

It never ceases to amaze me that the most diehard, ardent flag-wavers are usually the least American people of all... those who use the word "freedom" the most frequently seem to have no fucking clue what it actually means.

Re:Key quote from TFA

[TubeSteak]

What if that evidence had been thrown out because it was illegally, or at least questionably, obtained?

One of the basic things you'll learn in any course about criminal law is based on writings by a guy named Herbert Packer.

Basically, there are two ways to deal with crime:
the "due process" model and
the "crime control" model

The due process model revolves around protecting the rights of the accused by presenting formidable impediments to carrying them past each step in the legal process.

The crime control model desires to protect the rights of law-abiding citizens by stressing efficient apprehension and punishment of criminals.

Judges and criminal defense attorneys are all about due process
Criminal prosecutors deal with due process so they can convict
Most Policemen jump for joy at the idea of the crime control model

So, to bring everything back to what you said: The Police don't care about questionable origins of evidence. It burns them everytime evidence gets thrown out on 'technicalities'. They do not like things that impede their ability to arrest 'bad guys'.

Many rational people agree with that point of view, because they see see criminals as enemies, not members, of their community. Anything that prevents the community from defending itself is disabling.

This Librarian is is experiencing, first hand, how crime control people feel about impediments to capturing criminals.

Re:Key quote from TFA

[Synesthesiatic]

I've always thought that under the right circumstances the average American would put up with all his/her liberties being taken away, save one: the right to consume.

Re:Key quote from TFA

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

It burns them everytime evidence gets thrown out on 'technicalities'.

You'd think that. But in fact some of the strongest supporters of suspect rights (like reading the Miranda rights, etc.) are law enforcement associations. Why? Because (a) they actually believe in all that crazy land-of-the-free stuff and (b) they know that having (and following!) constraints on the police power helps keep them from being seen as -- and from becoming -- the Bad Guys. The positive impacts of being respected by the community, rather than feared by it, far outweigh the occasional slip in the system. Anyone who looks knows that effective policing requires community support.

There was a case in the early 1990s when the Supreme Court appeared to weaken Miranda rights (shamefully, I can't recall the case or a cite for it). Some of the most outspoken criticism came from a national association of sheriffs.

It's not about "letting criminals go". It's about having a fair and legitimate system for ascertaining who is a criminal, and it's about constraining the police power to prevent the abuse of actually innocent citizens. Or to put it more briefly, it's about that whole "innocent until proven guilty" jazz, plus that "due process of law" business.

In other words, it's basically about the meaning of America.

Re:Key quote from TFA

[foreverdisillusioned]

The freedom to read what you want to read is a powerful freedom indeed. If the police can walk up to the library and get a list of books you've checked out, they might discover all kinds of dirty (but perfectly) legal facts about you--e.g. that you're gay or at the very least gay-sympathetic. They can then use this information against you, officially or unofficially, in the social or political arena. Having to think twice every time you check out a book is a very big lost of freedom indeed--it's a potential curtailment of knowledge.

Privacy in general IS a rather huge freedom, and I really wish the constitution framers had made it explicit. A little-realized fact is that they were against the Bill of Rights in the beginning--not because they were against the rights it protected, but because they did not want to give the impression that it guaranteed ONLY those rights and no others. Unfortunately, that is the impression most Americans have today. Sophisticated and all-encompassing recordkeeping and surveillence didn't exist in the 1700s; the right to privacy was really rather a given. If they had realized the comming law enforcement revolutions, I'm sure they would have made it explict. As it is, the right to privacy must be protected under the "all other rights are reserved by the people, or by the states" clause. The courts and legislatures haven't been perfect about protecting this right, but the Patriot Act notwithstanding, it's still there at least a little bit.

It is very much in the spirit of the constitution to protect privacy. The police have no business gathering ANY of my private information whatsoever until they have obtained a warrant. Sheep like you always seem to forget that part--no one's arguing that they don't have a right to the library records. By all means, if they need it they should get it! ...but first, they must get a warrant, and to do that they must show that they have reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

Asshats like you are saying that they should have the power to search my private information even without reasonable suspicion. Please justify that to me. Please tell me why I should have to explain myself when a police officer comes to my door, asking why I checked out Mein Kampf or The Anarchist's Cookbook. Unless he suspects me of a crime, it's none of his fucking business what I read or why. Yet, he could very easily use such information against me if he wanted to make my life difficult. POLICE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUCH POWER OVER LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. You want to check up on my internet surfing habits, my reading habits, my phone calls, my porn collection, etc.? Fine, be my guess! You just have to have a good REASON first. It doesn't have to be ironclad; to get a warrant you just need a bit of a motive and/or a bit of circumstancial evidence. What you're asking for is the ability for LEAs to go fishing, trolling for petty criminals with absolutely no reasonable suspicion--but realize, they'll only do this amongst people they didn't like to begin with--the niggers, the spics, the liberals, etc. And like I said, even when they don't find evidence of wrongdoing they can still often wind up with damaging information.

I'm a law-abiding citizen, but I know I've checked out several books that, if commonly known (and correlated with certain facts reguarding my public life), might give me problems if I ever chose to run for office. What if I was an opponent of the local sheriff? Well, if this kind of shit were legal it would be a pretty simple matter for him to get my library records and let it slip to the local newspaper via an "anonymous source"...

So, there's your explanation, oh Anonymous Coward who claims to not see the usefulness of anonymity. It's given you the ability to attack me without losing karma or being added to anyone's foe list, hasn't it? Freedom to gain and share information is extremely sacred indeed, and if I may say so you are extremely anti-American (I'm going to continue to use the word American like it still stands for freedom. Who knows, maybe it will again... one day) for trying to deny that freedom.

Grandma was right

[Marko DeBeeste]

Teachers and librarians are the real heroes. They change the world without ever kicking down a door.

Re:Grandma was right

[Skreems]

Yep. Because driving a shiny car makes you a better person than him. Go you.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Journalism isn't an exact science

[jd]

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.

Re:Journalism isn't an exact science

[ClamIAm]

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.

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.

Re:Journalism isn't an exact science

[SatanicPuppy]

The journalists you're insulting are the only reason you even know about this. And despite what you seem to believe, committing large errors of fact regarding the police to the paper are a quick way to get your ass fired. Police departments are extremely sensitive to bad publicity, and newspapers are extremely sensitive to reporters who "don't let the facts get in the way of the story".

The odds of said librarian getting "severely punished" drop through the floor when this sort of story gets good media exposure, again thanks to the newspaper who broke the story.

Unless you're a tv talking head, or a fact-free syndicated columnist, being a journalist is a crap job. You get to spend all day trying to get info from people who only want to talk to you when it furthers their agenda, and you do it for little money, and no respect.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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....

Duh?

[keyne9]

'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.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[miskatonic alumnus]

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.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[MrNaz]

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.

huh?

[spiritraveller]

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.

Send your thanks to...

[mattkime]

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...)

Re:Send your thanks to...

[conlaw]

And for addtional comments:

The library maintains a comment form at http://www.bccls.org/feedback.shtml. Ellen Horn's firm, Ruderman & Glickman, P.C. of Springfield, NJ, doesn't have an internet site (it's "under construction"), but their fax number is (908) 624-6114

Re:Send your thanks to...

[KefabiMe]

Send some encouraging words! This is what I just sent.

Hello Michele,

I just read about your recent episode with law enforcement. I do not normally email strangers, but I wanted to thank you for requesting a subpoena before handing private data to law enforcement.

It saddens me to think that much of this country just reacts to fear and emotional pleas. Though I am an engineer at heart, I am very grateful to the librarians, history teachers, and government teachers in this country who do what they can to help us remember the past. Thank you for reminding folks through your actions that we have laws, regulations, and the Constitution for a reason.

The news report I read stated that your punishment may be as harsh as a 30-day unpaid suspension. I hope that you are instead praised by your community. I would prefer to see citizens like you serve in government rather than the mayor who called your actions "a blatant disregard for the Police Department."

I realize you have many emails to read as hundreds of thousands of people, if not a million, have heard of your actions by now. Hopefully you have a lot of encouraging words to read. I don't care what anyone says; you are not helping the terrorists. ;')

I first read about you on these two web sites.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/22/22 51209
http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3Z jczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXk2MDYmZmdiZWw3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTY5NTE 1NjImeXJpcnk3ZjcxN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkz

Good luck,
Josh Smith

Re:Send your thanks to...

[LrdHghFxr]

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?

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[voice_of_all_reason]

If the police can commit crimes, so can the rest of us!

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[target562]

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.

I'm Sick of Appeals to Fear

[verisof]

In September, I ran the datacenter in the Houston Astrodome during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. The organization I was working for (a large international organization that provides relief in disasters, hint hint) keeps data on the people who seek help private. In fact, that's their mantra. I received visits from no less than FOUR Department of Homeland Security deputies who wanted to get their hands on the refugee data, purportedly to track sexual predators. Some of these requests were polite and some were not. I've encountered similar requests within the last year for data in my corporate job as well.

It's my observation that these people will ALWAYS appeal to our base fear when they encounter barriers to getting the data they want, knowing that no one wants to aid and abet "Sexual Predators" or "Terrorists". That's why the due process laws, calling for subpoenas are in place here in the US (but for how long?) I can only hope that we can come to our senses and end this gross abuse of power. . . . Has anyone else had similar experiences? How come we never really hear much about it?

Re:I'm Sick of Appeals to Fear

[daveschroeder]

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.

Re:Why do you hate America?

[fozzy1015]

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'.

Protecting the library

[jmv]

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.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[SolvayGuy]

If the police were hot on a pedophile or sex offender, they would have been able to get their warrant in no time. This is a case of the police trying to be above the law and being sore because they were put in their place.

Also it's a public library, and a public place, and I would hope that a librarian would use her power to protect the public. We have a due process for a reason. Any potential "sex offender" has rights too. Innocent until proven guilty.

hell in a handbasket I tell you...

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[hawkeye_82]

Those who would sacrifice liberty over security, deserve neither security nor liberty.
                -Benjamin Franklin

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[inKubus]

Alleged sex offender. Allegedly scoping out your child. What's stopping them from pulling YOUR library records because they don't like you, and making up some story to throw you behind bars. This dude was 23, probably was a skateboarder or something and said "lick me where I pee" but the police wants to get rid of such a trouble maker so they just pin sexual comments on him. Maybe the girl threw something at his car, or maybe she's lying. God knows 12 year olds NEVER lie. I don't see how someone's library records could possibly stop a life or death situation. You see that stupid crap in the movies all the time but that doesn't make it real. Real police work is tedious and exhaustive. It has to be that way to protect the innocent. That is what sets America apart from the rest of the world. Now if a bunch of Redneck cops want to flex on the constitution, and then COMPLAIN that the librarian didn't LET THEM? Shit, it's every citizen's duty to make sure that the constitution is followed and to speak out if it isn't. For the protection of future generations. But I forgot, only "lefties" think about the future.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[rumblin'rabbit]

It's not "her" library,

Perhaps not, but she has been entrusted with running it. She is responsible for the library, and presumably would be held to task if she shirked that duty.

She's obstructing justice

Nope. Obstructing justice is a specific crime, and this librarian came no where near to committing such a crime. Quite the opposite - she kept strictly to the law.

It's ironic...

[Spy der Mann]

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.

Re:It's ironic...

[ScrewMaster]

I'd pretty much tell the stupid police to just do their job and STFU.

That's pretty much what she did, and apparently it pissed some of them off. Although, interestingly the police aren't the ones that are threatening her ... the Library's own Board of Directors (for some unaccountable reason) are not only not supporting her but are in the process of determining what punishment should be given to this woman for doing her job properly. That kind of in-your-face irrationality smacks of hidden politics: there's more to this story. Somebody has it in for Ms. Reutty, found an excuse to go after her, and is making the most of it. Either that, or she's simply being used as an example to show what happens to people that dare to tell the police to back off. I hope that the people of that fine city understand what's at stake here. Probably they don't.

What I find interesting is that the police were willing to deliberately obtain potentially tainted evidence. Maybe they didn't care: maybe they already had enough on the guy and simply wanted the Library's records to confirm what they already knew. But that's irrelevant: they wanted convenient access to confidential information without going through the proper channels. Frankly, it's not her job to make things easy for the cops: it is her job to, well, do her job.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[terrymr]

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 ?

Re:So what?

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

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.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[Guuge]

if a crime was committed the criminal has no right to privacy

Translation: No one has any right to privacy at any time. If the police want something you give it up and you'd better be quick about it.

My hero

[peacefinder]

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!

Re:The news just ate it up.

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Propaganda in the UK

[whoever57]

I was horrified by a drama that BBC America has shown in the USA, I assume it was previously broadcast in the UK. I am referring to Murder Prevention Unit.

In this drama, the police use illegal means to trap potential criminals.

None of the police are ever criticised or punished in any meaningful way for breaking the rules. The drama shows the rights of innocent people being routinely and egreiously trampled upon.

I see it as the BBC portraying what some people in government would like. No restraint on the police, no rules of evidence, no need, in fact for actual evidence -- just lock up (or better still, shoot) the people you think are the "bad guys". How many people will watch the drama and later think it is OK for the police to take such actions becasue "they have seen it on TV"?

Re:Propaganda in the UK

[badboy_tw2002]

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?"

This is to be expected

[dreemernj]

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.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[vertinox]

The police are out there busting their hump, protecting you and me. 99% of them are good

Apparently you've never been pulled over by a cop in Georgia.

Re:Leave it to New Jersey

[rangerfan558]

As a Lifelong resident, I have to agree. From local goverment to the state house, this state S*cks. As soon as my kids graduate, it's off to another state that lets me own a gun with out a hassle, and to let me shoot off a couple of bottle rockets to celebrate this COUNTRY's Independance, from the vey TYRANNY we are facing today.

let's do something about it

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's tell these sociopathic assholes what we think of their attempts to trample on our rights.

HASBROUCK HEIGHTS NJ - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasbrouck_Heights,_Ne w_Jersey
General Info - http://www.hasbrouck-heights.nj.us/general/towninf o.html

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.

Re:Why do you hate America?

[Egatlov]

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.

Let's be serious here...

[RyoShin]

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."

If it was so serious, then why couldn't the police go through the steps to get the supeona?

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!

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. But the Library Board of Trustees said it would reserve judgment until a closed-door hearing next month.

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.

the same old excuse

[v1]

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 said it before and I will say it again...

[harshmanrob]

If ANY law enforcement agency shows up and asks for anything, they had better have a warrant from a court in hand. These National Security Letters are bullshit and I wipe my ass with it after I scan and post it right here on slashdot.org, infowars.com, rense.com or whomever else would take it. Here that facist aggressor of the state. Fuck you. Yes this will drop the karma points, but I am damn tired of seeing facist police scum jackboots trying to set up a police state using secrecy and fear. I ain't scared of you people.

seriousness of the matter?

[Physics Dude]

" 'It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter,' Horn said."

Apparently the police didn't think it was even serious enough to bother getting a subpoena.

Facts

[Tony]

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.

I don't get it...

[layer3switch]

"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.

Sad fact but...

[Caine]

Citizens of the United States of America, you do realize you live in a fascist state, don't you?

Re:Sad fact but...

[Xiroth]

Bleck. The problem I've run into when trying to point this out has always been that when people hear the word fascism, they expect the specifics of the two most well-known fascist nations in history. They say "We don't have secret police or a dictator" (although perhaps both those claims are disputable). Well, yeah, but that's not what fascism is. Fascism is exactly how the US currently works: An authoritarian, extreme right-wing (by most nations' standards) nation which has a significant proportion of its economy dominated by the military.

Perhaps we need a new word to describe this type of state because of the loaded content behind the old one, in the hopes that people will begin to understand where they stand.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[NormalVisual]

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.

Re:So what?

[OzoneLad]

"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

Text of NJ Library Privacy Statute

[patio11]

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.

TO Ellen Horn

[baomike]

Following the law is not a "misjudgement".

She did what was correct

[zoomshorts]

From the article, "But borough officials say Reutty intentionally stonewalled the police investigation by putting the library first.".

The subpeona has to be specific about what is to be seized. The librarian did what was proper.

The instrument was not license for a 'fishing expedition'. When the police returned with a more
specific instrument, she complied with the instrument.

This is how our system is supposed to work. The police were negligent OR STUPID. They ask
for subpoena's ALL the time. They should know that they need to be specific. Can you say "Keystone Cops employ Barney Fife"? Sure you can.

As stated previously, the city idiots are politicians, with NO CLUE. They were, after all, voted into office.

The inclusion of the city or Libraries lawyer, would most likely have not lead to ANY more protection to the
citizen's rights. Sadly, these same people have been around for many years, and have had the opportunity to
read newspapers that have published cases like this before. They did not read them or convienently forgot the precedents already in the law.

Pity.

Apropos Quotation

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

In this case the proper quote would be:

"Those who would give up essential libraries to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither libraries nor safety."

Hurray for Librarians

[sciop101]

Let those people know how you feel!

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

You can't be serious

[OverflowingBitBucket]

From the article:

Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena. ... 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.

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.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Bad idea, please do not slashdot her email.

[megaditto]

Really want to thank her? Why not mail her $10 or something?

2nd model should be "police state".

[khasim]

As noted by a previous poster, you do not know whether someone is a "criminal" until after the investigation.

Those who advocate more authority for the police are actually advocating a "police state" as opposed to a "Free nation".

Many rational people agree with that point of view, because they see see criminals as enemies, not members, of their community. Anything that prevents the community from defending itself is disabling.

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.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[sgtrock]

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.

Fear of Totalitarianism out-ways fear of "bad guys

[S.P.B.Wylie]

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.

Ask for a warrant...

[Medieval_Thinker]

On my way home from a motorcycle trip once I was stopped in Columbia, MO. The policeman had me demonstrate that all my lights worked and then told me he was going to have to search my bags. Now I had been on the road for a week, and had some funky clothes and little else in the bags. There was for sure nothing the policeman would have cared about, but I did not feel like having him dig through my dirty underwear.

I told him that he did not have my permission to search the bags, and I asked if I was being charged with anything. He told me he could have a search warrant in no time. He had been fishing with the judge just that morning.

I encouraged him to get a warrant if he wanted to search the bags.

He said it could also take a while to process the warrant, and he would have to take me to the jail to wait. I told him I was a teacher and was on summer break. A wait would just make for a better story when I got home.

I asked if I was being charged with anything.

We danced around this issue for a while. I was polite but firm. He kept telling me he was going to have to search the bags.

He never did search the bags or write me a ticket or tell me why he stopped me.

It still pisses me off.

I think the librarian should have asked for a subpoena. There are fundamental issues here, and while I don't think anyone should obstruct justice, I also don't think policemen should be able to waltz into a library and ask for circulation records. It is not that you have anything to hide, but sometimes you don't feel like having someone digging through your personal stuff.

Re:Ask for a warrant...

[jamstigator]

This reminds me of an encounter I had with the police. I was in the Army, but home on leave. I decided to visit my sister, by walking to her home, about a 4 mile journey. On the way I bought a cold beer. Not wanting to be a bad role model or anything, I kept it in the paper bag it came in as I swigged on it. Well, I did look young, although I was 21 and completely legal. A cop stopped me and asked what was in the bag, and I told him it was a cold beer. He asked for my ID. I asked what would happen to me if I didn't provide identification and he told me he'd have to take me to the police station. Since the police station was about 2.5 miles closer to my sister's house than my current location, this seemed like a good deal to me, so I declined to show him my ID and he told me to get in the car, which I did.

We got to the station and he asked me again to show him identification, which I promptly produced. Seeing that I was 21 and therefore had broken no laws, he asked me why I had refused to show him my identification previously, to which I replied, "Because you just got me a whole lot closer to where I was going, and frankly, I was tired of walking in the heat." This produced much laughter from his police comrades, and clearly pissed him off no end, but I had done nothing wrong, and they couldn't hold me, so I left and was at my sister's house about 40 minutes faster than I could have arrived without the police serving as my personal taxi. ;)

Success vs. Start

[pingveno]

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.

Re:Success vs. Start

[indifferent children]

Once the suicides start, how do you tell the voluntary ones from the (ah hem) involuntary ones?

Trust us.

Well, I'm a librarian...

[tahii]

...and there is no way in hell our library would give out ANY information about ANYONE to te police, or any justice official without a warrant first. We are not even allowed to say to a police officer if someone they are looking for is in, or has been in the library.

In saying this, I am in New Zealand, where people actually care about privacy laws.

Allow me to make it more clear

[QuantumG]

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.

Britain and Data protection

[Gothly]

Here in the UK, my sister, who is a librarian, is often asked for customers' data by the police. Usually for sensible reasons, e.g. they found a handbag with a library book in it and want to find the owner. However, she has had it made clear to her by her bosses that it is completely illegal to give such information out without a warrent - the data protection act simply doesn't allow it. She always finds it amusing to be having to explain to the police what the law is!

Kipling, when we need him

[Flying pig]

Never goes out of relevance:

Whosoever, for any cause
Seeketh to take or give
Power above or beyond the laws
Suffer it not to live!

Holy priesthood, holy king
Holy people's will
Have no truck with the senseless thing
Order the guns and kill!

It cuts both ways indeed

[Moraelin]

And one way you keep seeing it cutting the other way is providing an endless stream of ammo for those in power to use as justification for their getting more power. Any crime or problem can be presented as a nation-sweeping epidemic, that demands immediate action, if the public is just bombarded with just enough examples of it happening.

The problem, as I've been saying before is that human brains functions sorta like that of Terry Prattchett's trolls, whose counting went something like "one, two, many, lots". People simply lose sense of proportion beyond a certain scale. A week, a month, or a year, or even ten years, you can put into an intuitive proportion. A billion years, you can't. Or 10, 100 or 1000 people you can see every day. A billion people becomes just a very large number. "Lots." You may be able to work maths with 1,000,000,000 or 10^9, but your intuition won't help you.

Hence bombarding people with stuff that happened over such huge, unintuitive areas and numbers of people can be a very dangerous thing. The fact that it was a one in a million or one in a billion case just gets lost, and all those cases are treated as if they all happened in a world barely larger than their home town.

E.g., if you heard that one gamer in your home town preferred to play EQ until he lost his job, his house and everything, you think "heh. What a loser." But when you get bombarded with thousands of examples of that happening, it suddenly becomes "whoa! It's a dangerous addiction! It's a wave sweeping the nation!" Why? Because your brain doesn't have the intuitive framework to put it in the right proportion: that it's one in a million cases. But your intuition acts as if they all happened within a mile of your home.

E.g., if you heard that someone raped a child in your home town, you're disgusted, shocked, etc, but in the end, eh, it's one insane person. But get bombarded with cases from all over the world, and evidence that it happens every day, and suddenly it starts seeming like every other adult male is getting a hard-on at pre-teens. Why? Again, because it's not put in the right proportion. It's compared to a vague "Lots" number that's just marginally larger than the male population you see in a day.

And so on.

And while, yes, on one hand it does serve to also amplify the perceived extent of the abuses of power, it also works the other way, giving those in power ammo to keep people scared and justify getting more power. Yes, some citizens might be genuinely mistaken and concerned about the extent of police abuses. But on the other hand, there'll also be a bunch of ruthless politicians understanding this phenomenon and milking it for everything its got.

And frankly, the latter worries me more.

Re:But it has gone too far

[foreverdisillusioned]

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.

serious? judgement?

[CamelTrader]

'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.

Supporting Evidence

[Khammurabi]

It is supposed to prevent a police officer from abusing his position to collect sensitive information. All too often it's forgotten that there have been cops who will dig up dirt to be used for personal gain.

To emphasize this point, my mother's close friend is the mayor's assistant for a sizable (over 40k) city in Wisconsin. After being elected, the chief of police and his cadre quickly spent resources and dug up as much dirt as they could on the mayor, and then attempted to blackmail him to ensure they had free reign. The mayor told them to piss off, so the police then proceeded to dig up dirt on each of the mayor's direct reports and repeat the process. My mother's friend is scared to no end, and is strongly considering just quitting. (They had dirt on the previous mayor as well, and so were used to the ill-gotten freedom.)

If this is happening in a city this size, I can only imagine the greed and underhandedness that happens in larger cities. This country needs to wake up, and the general population needs a few more IQ points to boot.

Re:She Did The Wrong Thing

[Alsee]

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.

-

Their propaganda has worked

[spun]

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.

No, you don't.

[Kadin2048]

There's no "right to not be offended", but everyone has a right to feel safe.

Actually, no, you don't. This idea, that people have some "right" to feel secure, or good about themselves, or where they live, or anything else, is an incredibly dangerous thing, and it's sort of crept into the public's mind lately. It needs to go away.

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.