Man Admits to Public Indecency at Library

Daily Herald ^ | January 14, 2005 | Christy Gutowski

[ScottFromSpokane]

I have no interest in a debate on this subject. I merely offered a relevant datum, and you've come up with an interpretation which you think explains it away. I see no need to challenge your view.

[dagogo redux]

no person shall publish or make any information contained in such records available to the public.

Not sure if the police, investigating a crime, would be defined as "the public", would they?

[plan2succeed.org]

Another possible way of looking at it is to say the Police are not "the public." The act says the info must not be disclosed to the public. Presumably the Police are part of the same governmental structure as the librarian. Therefore, information could be released to the police without it being considered a public release. Just a possibility I post for others to consider.

[chemicalman]

When I first saw the headline, I thought they had arrested Clinton at his library.

[plan2succeed.org]

Initially, library officials refused, citing state privacy laws prohibiting the release of such information without a court order.

If the library relied on that act we were discussing above, they may have been in error. And, if they are put on notice of the error, would further refusals in like circumstances subject the library to liability?

[plan2succeed.org]

bttt

[plan2succeed.org]

Library Rapist Ruled "Sexually Violent Predator":  "Before his arrest last year, he was repeatedly thrown out of Philadelphia libraries for publicly masturbating and viewing pornography on library computers...."