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

[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

[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

[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..."

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

[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

[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

[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."

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.

Grandma was right

[Marko DeBeeste]

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

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.

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...

[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

[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.

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'.

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.

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!

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: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.

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.

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.