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.”
Just to make it clear; If I were the librarian and the police informed me of a bomb threat in the building, I would assist in any way I could.
By the rules of this particular institution (listed above (#71 by mrsmith)), if they came an insisted a bomb maker might have used one of the chemistry books to make a bomb, I would be obligated to ask for a warrant.
My first post on this thread said they could have and should have gotten a warrant.
Problem solved, let's go get a beer.
" 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.
Looks pretty simple to me."
Me too.
If a car can be searched without a warrant. Even a purse in said car can, then a PUBLIC building belonging to the local government can be searched.
Sheesh.
A cop can not stop you just to search your car.
If he stops you for a traffic violation and notes evidence or has reasonable suspicion that you have contraband, then your car can be searched.
Do you live outside the US?
If a car can be searched without a warrant. Even a purse in said car can, then a PUBLIC building belonging to the local government can be searched.
Sheesh
Searching the building is not the issue.
Searching the 'papers & effects' of citizens cannot be done without warrants.
See post #64.
I wonder if that's really enforced. Most libraries are pretty informal places. It doesn't seem like the situation would come up very often or that librarians would know what to do about it. It sounds more like a rule for rule's sake, rather than the actual procedure.
"Searching the 'papers & effects' of citizens cannot be done without warrants."
Er, people don't own their library records.
So they are not their papers or effects.
Sheesh.
Don't change the subject or move the goalposts.
It's clear from your prior posts you have comic book concept of the law and the Fourth Amendment.
Prove your point.
It's clear from your prior posts you have comic book concept of the law and the Fourth Amendment. "
I did neither.
You're the one who made the statement that cars or purses in cars could be searched without a warrant; I simply pointed out that they couldn't without specific reasons.
Too many examples of case law to cite, but I'm sure a smart feller like you could google enough of them without my help.
The term you are looking for is "probably cause."
The FBI in this case had probable cause.
The courts say officers of the law can search your car, your purse, etc., upon probable cause.
A publicly owned library computer would fit under that as well, if a matter of exigency.
You're a waste of time.
You're the guy who made a blanket statement that cars and purses could be searched without a warrant.
I'll stand by the merits of my posts and merely laugh at yours.
You didn't answer my question.
Do you live in the US?
Learn the law:
Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations (July 2002)
2. Exigent Circumstances
Under the "exigent circumstances" exception to the warrant requirement, agents can search without a warrant if the circumstances "would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry . . . was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of the suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts." See United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir. 1984) (en banc). In determining whether exigent circumstances exist, agents should consider: (1) the degree of urgency involved, (2) the amount of time necessary to obtain a warrant, (3) whether the evidence is about to be removed or destroyed, (4) the possibility of danger at the site, (5) information indicating the possessors of the contraband know the police are on their trail, and (6) the ready destructibility of the contraband. See United States v. Reed, 935 F.2d 641, 642 (4th Cir. 1991).
http://www.cybercrime.gov/s&smanual2002.htm#_IC2_
Your post raises a grand "I'm a troll and Bozo" stink about it.
No. The government had no warrant. The librarian would not be arrested.
It's been a good debate though.
You must be a libertarian. I always learn something when I argue with libertarians.
I know you're not a liberal since you haven't called me a racist Nazi.
"You must be a libertarian. I always learn something when I argue with libertarians."
LOL
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.