Posted on 01/25/2006 12:05:00 PM PST by danno3150
Newton officials are calling their refusal to allow FBI agents access to library computers without a warrant during a terrorist threat last week “their finest hour.”
Law enforcement officials say it’s a “nightmare.”
Police rushed to the Newton Free Library after tracing a terrorist threat e-mailed to Brandeis University to a computer at the library.
But requests to examine computers Jan. 18 were rebuffed by Newton library Director Kathy Glick-Weil and Mayor David Cohen on the grounds that they did not have a warrant.
Cohen, defending the library’s actions, called the legal standoff one of Newton’s “finest hours.”
“We showed you can enforce the law — without jeopardizing the privacy of innocent citizens,” the mayor said.
It took U.S. attorneys several hours to finally secure a warrant, Glick-Weil said, and they took the computer from the library at about 11:30 that night, after the library had closed.
Brandeis received the alleged e-mail threat at about 11 a.m., according to Waltham Lt. Brian Navin. While police reportedly didn’t find anything threatening after evacuating 12 buildings at Brandeis and a nearby elementary school, by about 2 p.m., the e-mail was traced to a computer at the Newton Free Library.
Newton police, followed shortly by FBI and state police officers, rushed to the library to lock the building down, Glick-Weil said.
“There was a lot of excitement going on,” she said.
An FBI spokesman, as well as Lt. Bruce Apotheker of the Newton police, both said their offices would not comment on the investigation.
But a law enforcement official close to the investigation said in an e-mail the confrontation was a “nightmare.”
Nancy Murray, director of education for the Boston branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she was surprised the FBI asked for information without a warrant.
“They couldn’t possibly expect to get (the computer) without a warrant,” she said. “Good for the library for knowing more about warrants than the police.”
BTW: I went in my local library last week.
The 20 or so computer consoles were all occupied. But the stacks were empty of people.
I suppose soon if something isn't on electronic media it might as well not exist.
The word "unreasonable" in the first clause is the crucial qualifier of the whole amendment - it does not say "there shall never be any searches or seizures under any circumstances" it say there shall be no "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Defining what is reasonable and unreasonable is not some worthless diversion, though I certainly agree that many SCOTUS justices, not to mention Congress-critters, are untrustworthy guides to reason.
Right.
And this is all moot anyway. The courts have long since decided on this matter.
What the FBI wanted to do was perfectly legal. See my post above.
Well, it's true.
I disagree with them sometimes, but at least they have principles to disagree with.
So, I'm willing to discuss the merits of the issue, and you weigh in with calling me a troll and a bozo.
I'm glad you had something worthwhile to bring to the table.
Which post in particular?
I have found that when someone starts or joins a discussion and begins by calling names they aren't very effective.
They were chasing down a prankster. There were no exigent circumstances.
Not bad, but not quite accurate either.
I have libertarian leanings, but I'm more of a Constitutionalist who happens to vote Republican.
Is that some sort of dis-qualifier around these parts?
"They were chasing down a prankster. There were no exigent circumstances."
And you know that how?
Divine revelation?
Try reading the article. the buildings were cleared. Also, the agents would have took the computers anyway, if there were exigent circumstances.
You're another waste of time.
Sam:
Er, people don't own their library records. So they are not their papers or effects.
Sheesh.
Er, - faulty logic.. Your medical records are 'yours' even though a doctor keeps them.
Sheesh.
Also, read post #71:
"-- Newton Free Library is dedicated to protecting the privacy and confidentiality of our patrons. Our policy complies with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 78, Section 7 (1994 edition): "Part of the records of a public library which reveals the identity and intellectual pursuits of a person using such library shall not be a public record as defined by clause Twenty-sixth of section seven of chapter four."
This policy extends to circulation records (borrowing records, registration records, reserves or fine records), interlibrary loan transactions, registration records, database search records and reference interviews. Except in cases involving the USA Patriot Act, no records can be made available to any inquiries, governmental or otherwise, unless a subpoena has been served by a court of competent jurisdiction and the library administration has consulted with legal counsel to determine if it is proper to release the requested information. --"
I cited the law in post #95.
I can't help it if you can't understand it.
Truth hurts, don't it.
You cited a portion of the law. The remainder of that paragraph goes on to state:
"Importantly, the existence of exigent circumstances does not permit agents to search or seize beyond what is necessary to prevent the destruction of the evidence. When the exigency ends, the right to conduct warrantless searches does as well: the need to take certain steps to prevent the destruction of evidence does not authorize agents to take further steps without a warrant. See United States v. Doe, 61 F.3d 107, 110-11 (1st Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the seizure of computer hardware to prevent the destruction of information it contains will not ordinarily support a subsequent search of that information without a warrant. See David, 756 F. Supp. at 1392."
My bold
Since the article wasn't specific as to the concern of the destruction of the hardware, I'll assume the agents did not want to or felt they could not support the exigent circumstances issue and chose to get a warrant.
An idiot using a public library to send a bomb threat to Brandeis is engaging in an "act of war"? Give me a break.
Sam:
Er, people don't own their library records. So they are not their papers or effects.
Sheesh.
Er, - faulty logic.. Your medical records are 'yours' even though a doctor keeps them.
Sheesh.
Also, read post #71:
"-- Newton Free Library is dedicated to protecting the privacy and confidentiality of our patrons. Our policy complies with the Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 78, Section 7 (1994 edition): "Part of the records of a public library which reveals the identity and intellectual pursuits of a person using such library shall not be a public record as defined by clause Twenty-sixth of section seven of chapter four."
This policy extends to circulation records (borrowing records, registration records, reserves or fine records), interlibrary loan transactions, registration records, database search records and reference interviews. Except in cases involving the USA Patriot Act, no records can be made available to any inquiries, governmental or otherwise, unless a subpoena has been served by a court of competent jurisdiction and the library administration has consulted with legal counsel to determine if it is proper to release the requested information. --"
I cited the [federal] law in post #95.
I can't help it if you can't understand it.
I understand the issue better than you.. --- I cited the State law in post 113, [which addresses the Patriot Act] -- and the Constitution in my previous post.
Apparently you can't understand that the librarian is bound by oath to honor the US Constitution as our supreme law.
The issue is - does the fed statute you cited at #95 trump the Constitution?
- We shall see..
Wrong -- this director was out of line
since they are a government official
not an individual...these idiots have
become enablers of the criminals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.