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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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.
Bull. Why is reasonable protection of private information seen by you as discouraging cooperation with police "under any circumstances"? Do we live in a police state? Do you want ALL your private information turned over without question? I thought we were conservatives here.
This is the written policy:
Citizens using the public library have the right to expect privacy with regard to information sought or received and materials consulted, borrowed or requested.
In accordance with HB 389, Confidentiality Legislation, effective October 3, 2000, library records and patron information are confidential. However, library records or patron information will be released in the following situations:
1. parents, guardians and custodians will have access to their minor children's records;
2. in accordance with a subpoena, search warrant, or other court order, or to a law enforcement officer who is investigating a matter involving public safety in exigent circumstances;
3. with the consent of the individual who is the subject of the record or information; or
4. for library administrative purposes only.
Please explain to me what the problem is with that policy. It seems to me a perfectly reasonable balance between the need for privacy and the need for information in certain circumstances.
Because I've worked there nearly 20 years and know the phone system. How do you know whether or not YOU have Caller ID?
He didn't "gloss over" anything. He was discussing the reasons for not disclosing personal information over the phone. Why is that such a difficult concept? Do you want your credit card information released to anyone who calls the company identifying himself as an officer? Your bank records? Medical records?
Since you're playing "Wander all over the place", my turn.
The library doesn't have my credit card information.
OK, how would YOU write the policy, keeping in mind it needs to be logical, legal and impervious to lawsuits, not simply "me thinks the dumb liberal library ladies should give out any information the gubmint wants, no questions asked".
No s**t, Sherlock. Try to think a little more abstractly or this will be very painful.
Excuse me, but this story is out of Ohio and you profile lists New York as your state.
Pardon me if I'm a bit unconvinced...
My library card has my name on it.
Excuse me, but this story is out of Ohio and you profile lists New York as your state.
Are you insane? Or just really, really dumb?
I never said I worked in THAT library.
I asked you why you assumed THAT library had Caller ID.
Specifically, I wrote "What makes you think they'd have Caller ID? My library doesn't."
You responded "How would you know if your library has Caller ID or not?"
And I told you.
Is this quantum physics? Why are you so befuddled?
No, throw that shrimp into a huge pot with crawfish, corn, potatoes and Zatarain's seasoning.
I only read the headline and thought she was dead. In an hour, she wouldn't be any more dead. And you'll need those shrimp for the wake.
But even though she was alive, the lack of info didn't impede her care, or the shrimp boil. And the library used common sense and was ready in 10 minutes. Which is 3 minutes longer than the corn takes.
The policies of the ALA might seem a bit hard core, but they're in place to keep private records private. In this day and age that's a laudable goal, and one that I support.
Did you even read the policy you quoted in your post? It covers legitimate requests by law enforcement officers in exigent circumstances regarding public safety... without a court order. It's right there in the policy you quoted, which is why I have no problem with the policy.
Your humor is appreciated.
I hate to turn this into a remedial reading class but please read the policy again, the very policy you've quoted several times. The head librarian made no such "on-the-fly amendment". She followed the policy as written, which clearly states that information can be disclosed, without a subpoena or court order, "to a law enforcement officer who is investigating a matter involving public safety in exigent circumstances".
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.