Terror threat sparks Newton librarian/FBI standoff

Boston Herald ^ | 01/25/06 | Dan Atkinson

[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.”

[RetiredSWO]

Meanwhile the perp gets away

[Sam Hill]

"The issue is - does the fed statute you cited at #95 trump the Constitution?"

I didn't cite any federal statute. I cited case law, decided upon by the courts and upheld by the Supreme Court many times over to be Constitutional.

You really need to learn how to read before you start teaching us about the Constitution.

[RetiredSWO]

The people there, on the whole, don't have 2 brain cells to rub together.

Did you really mean as a whole vice ... on the whole?

[RetiredSWO]

So now you are rewriting the 4th Amendment to support obstruction by librarians?

[dinasour]

Is that some sort of dis-qualifier around these parts?

Not at all, but I don't always get to say.

[tpaine]

Sam Hill wrote:

I didn't cite any federal statute. I cited case law, decided upon by the courts and upheld by the Supreme Court many times over to be Constitutional.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not true.. You cited a DOJ training manual:


Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations (July 2002)

Address:http://www.cybercrime.gov/s&smanual2002.htm


PREFACE

This publication (the Manual) is a revised version of the 2001 edition of "Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations." In addition to discussing recent caselaw, the Manual incorporates the important changes made to the laws governing electronic evidence gathering by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001) (the "PATRIOT Act"). These changes are discussed primarily in Chapters 3 and 4.


Many of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act relevant here would, unless reenacted into law, sunset on December 31, 2005. Accordingly, prosecutors and agents are urged to inform the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS), at 202-514-1026, whenever use of the new authorities proves helpful in a criminal case. This information will help ensure that Congress is fully informed when deciding whether to reenact these provision.



As is true with most efforts of this kind, the Manual is intended to offer assistance, not authority.

Its analysis and conclusions reflect current thinking on difficult areas of law, and do not represent the official position of the Department of Justice or any other agency.

It has no regulatory effect, and confers no rights or remedies.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Sam --,

You really need to learn how to read before you start teaching us about 'case law'..

[Sam Hill]

Yeah, what a discovery on your part. You can click on a link.

The content of what I cited was case law.

Sorry I embarrassed you by pointing out that you not only do not understand even the most basic notions of the US Constitution, you can't tell the difference between court citations and US Code.

Go troll someone else.

[randomnumber]

"Nice try -- but the keys word is unreasonable.

The 4th Amendment is not a suicide pact..."

Yep.

As stated upthread, I probably would have complied with the request, but I wasn't asked.

What I find to be reasonable may not be reasonable to the next person.

[tpaine]

4th AMENDMENT: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, [including library records] 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."

Every public official in the USA, [including librarians] are sworn to protect & defend the Constitution..

So now you are rewriting the 4th Amendment to support obstruction by librarians?

So now your rewriting my points about the 4th including private 'papers & effects' held in trust by others?

[tpaine]

Sam Hill wrote:

I didn't cite any federal statute. I cited case law, decided upon by the courts and upheld by the Supreme Court many times over to be Constitutional.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not true.. You cited a DOJ training manual:


Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations (July 2002)

Address:http://www.cybercrime.gov/s&smanual2002.htm


PREFACE

This publication (the Manual) is a revised version of the 2001 edition of "Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations." In addition to discussing recent caselaw, the Manual incorporates the important changes made to the laws governing electronic evidence gathering by the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001) (the "PATRIOT Act"). These changes are discussed primarily in Chapters 3 and 4.


Many of the provisions of the PATRIOT Act relevant here would, unless reenacted into law, sunset on December 31, 2005. Accordingly, prosecutors and agents are urged to inform the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS), at 202-514-1026, whenever use of the new authorities proves helpful in a criminal case. This information will help ensure that Congress is fully informed when deciding whether to reenact these provision.



As is true with most efforts of this kind, the Manual is intended to offer assistance, not authority.

Its analysis and conclusions reflect current thinking on difficult areas of law, and do not represent the official position of the Department of Justice or any other agency.

It has no regulatory effect, and confers no rights or remedies.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Sam --,

You really need to learn how to read before you start teaching us about 'case law'..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Sam Hill wrote:
Yeah, what a discovery on your part. You can click on a link. The content of what I cited was case law.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nope it's a training manual that clearly says:

"-- Its analysis and conclusions reflect current thinking on difficult areas of law, and do not represent the official position of the Department of Justice or any other agency. --"

Sorry I embarrassed you by pointing that out.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Sorry I embarrassed you by pointing out that you not only do not understand even the most basic notions of the US Constitution, you can't tell the difference between court citations and US Code. Go troll someone else.
-Sam-

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Our Constitutional differences go far beyond "trolling". I believe that even librarians should honor our supreme law. --
-- Apparently, you don't care much if the FBI ignores it.
-- What the sam hill is going on?

[bvw]

Do you live in the US?

[bvw]

Shades of the Essex Junto.

[bvw]

What are your feelings to saboteurs?

[tpaine]

bvw wrote:

What are your feelings to saboteurs?

Much as they were when, over 50 years ago, I took the the oath to protect & defend the Constitution.

I say we kill em all.. -- How bout you?

[randomnumber]

Yes

[bvw]

Well, then we should find them pre-act and not post.

Whether they are Essex Junto associates in the War of 1812, Loyalists during the Revolution, German Bunders during WW II, Copperheads during the War Between the States. And finding them means interception of communications, acting with maximum dispatch, etc. The Due Process of Peacetime is death during War. We are at war.

The War/Peace switch was thrown to the War position on 9-11.

[bvw]

We are at War, the US is in the war zone. Act first is the rule in war. The answer to your question is "Yes". Of sabotage, presumed.

[bvw]

Do you live outside the US?

[tpaine]

bvw wrote:

What are your feelings to saboteurs?

Much as they were when, over 50 years ago, I took the the oath to protect & defend the Constitution.
I say we kill em all.. -- How bout you?

Well, then we should find them pre-act and not post.

Might be hard to do that, given our Constitutional rules of law.

Whether they are Essex Junto associates in the War of 1812, Loyalists during the Revolution, German Bunders during WW II, Copperheads during the War Between the States. And finding them means interception of communications, acting with maximum dispatch, etc. The Due Process of Peacetime is death during War. We are at war.
The War/Peace switch was thrown to the War position on 9-11.

Yep, we're at war. But due process under our Constitution still applies. Always has, always will.

The Commander in Chief has wartime powers, but they do not include ignoring any part of the Constitution.

[bvw]

That is debatable. Debatable because the Constitution does not so say, and yet if during the extraodrinary times of War, Insurrection and General Riot, the continuance of rights named in the Bill of Rights and the right to public trial by jury should have been specified because by the common law of the time they did not so continue -- at least in full -- without timely exception accorded a situation at hand, because of the necessity of prompt action in the three extreme situations I listed.

The Constitution also has a number of hints. One that the Chief Executive is also Commander-On-Chief. Two that our governmental form is that of s strong and independent Chief Executive, and not a weaker-powered Prime Minister. And a third is the order of objectives listed in the Premable. Securing the blessings of Liberty (that is the rights of people) is last, and providing for the common defense and ensuring domestic trnaquility are precedent.