Posted on 02/05/2007 9:17:13 PM PST by plan2succeed.org
LANCASTER, Ohio — Police tried to identify a woman they pulled from an icy river by checking on her library card, but the library would not cooperate, citing a policy set by its board.
The woman, who was treated for unknown injuries, was carrying her library card on a key ring but had no other identification when a passer-by found her in the Hocking River on Thursday night, police said.
So a dispatcher, then an officer called the Fairfield County District Library and were told the library could not release the information without a court order. The woman later was identified as Sheila Springer, 51, by someone at the local hospital where she was taken.
The woman was later taken to Grant Medical Center in Columbus, where she would not allow information to be released on Friday. The hospital said Saturday they had no information on Springer. There was no telephone listing for her. Police did not know how she got in the river.
The library's board set the policy of withholding information about cardholders, library Director Marilyn Steiner said Saturday.
However, Steiner said that after being contacted about the police request, she told her staff they could release the information if they were sure the caller was a law enforcement officer and it was "a matter of life or death." Steiner said the library was prepared to release the woman's identity about 10 minutes after the first call by police, but was told it was no longer necessary.
Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. I CLAIM EXCEPTION UNDER COPYRIGHT FAIR USE PROVISIONS.
Precisely. I support the library in this 100%.
Well, thank you, and I'm sorry if you felt I was too personal. I've never been a public librarian, so I don't know the ALA "agenda" as you seem to, but it's apparent that you had some kind of personal altercation with someone at a library, and that seems to be what's motivating this.
I'm with Saquin (sp?); the library followed protocol and was, very rapidly, prepared to cooperate.
Quit cluttering up this thread with facts !! Library = ACLU = Hate America /sarc
Each person's library card, library record, holds etc. are for that person alone, not their spouse. As an example, people contemplating divorce sometimes put those items on hold and would not necessarily want their spouse to stroll into the library and say "let me have whatever books my wife put on hold."
If she owned a fine they'd identify her fast enough!
I could ask you the same question. :) Privacy policies exist for a reason, and their ability to comply within ten minutes is just not a big issue. That's not just my opinion; read most of the other responses you are getting on this thread.
The issue is not the time lag. The issue is the refusal to help the police. The later willingness to help the police does not obliterate the previous refusal to help. And by then the help was no longer needed anyway, according to the story.
Not all "public libraries" are paid for by taxpayers. Many communities have libraries that are paid for by donations, grants, or bequests and would be classified as a foundation.
"Privacy" fascists.
The article does not indicate that the police are taking any action against the library for their perceived recalcitrance. Presumably if the library acted against the law, they would.
Interesting. I don't know off hand if the ALA has control over them. In the future, I'll keep an eye on the distinction. I don't think I've come across it yet. Perhaps they don't have the same ALA-engendered problems public libraries do?
If your library takes payment of fines by credit cards like mine does then your library may actually have your credit card information.
Lawsuit decisions take time. Further, the ALA purposely trains lawyers by the hundreds to get into communities to quell these things before they get out of hand. But they won't be successful in doing that all the time, so sooner or later the ALA's agenda will likely be exposed for public viewing.
I hadn't heard about ALA "stealth lawyers". And the police are afraid of them? My goodness.
The ALA does not control libraries. Many librarians and libraries do not support every notion the ALA pushes. My library director thinks ALA conferences are a waste of time, though he does readily support us going to ACRL conferences, which are a subset of ALA.
The ALA sets guidelines for such things as privacy and free access to information and libraries can follow them as they see fit. Whatever works best for the community is what I believe most libraries choose to follow.
I do agree that this article is misleading. It would have been a severe lapse in judgment in my opinion for the library to give out a phone number immediately to somebody that could not be identified. They were ready in a scant ten minutes to cooperate if needed and if they knew they were speaking to an actual police officer and not a disgruntled boyfriend, bill collector, etc.
You said: The issue is not the time lag. The issue is the refusal to help the police. The later willingness to help the police does not obliterate the previous refusal to help. And by then the help was no longer needed anyway, according to the story.
***
I don't have a dog in this fight, as far as I know. My library card has my name on it. It's in my wallet with my drivers license and other identifying information. I don't have a thing for or against libraries or librarians in general. It wouldn't surprise me if most of them leaned left, however.
That said, I don't see a problem with how the library reacted in this case, based upon what I have read in the article. The lady had already been treated, so this was not an "exigent" circumstance. The police appear to have called on the phone, so it was not obvious that the police were who they said they were. The information I gave the library to get my library card doesn't include anything that would help treat me medically. I don't see any evidence of ill will toward the police by the librarian, only a concern about releasing information to someone who may not be entitled to it. Even the police aren't entitled to information unless it is for a proper purpose. Finally, the slight delay here could not have resulted in any harm, given the nature of the information the library probably had about her. I wonder how long it would have taken if the police had found a doctor's office appointment card on the woman? What would the doctor's office have required in order to give out information such as blood type, allergies, medical history, etc.? I doubt that the doctor's office would have given ID data to the police (or, as in this case, someone calling and claiming to be the police), at least not as readily as to the hospital.
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.