Bull, let's not be livberal and wander away from the subject. This one was clearly a policy to discourage cooperation with the police under any circumstances because it demanded a court order.
Luckily, someone had some common sense to realize the folly of that in this case and overruled the rule.
For someone to go against written policy, they must be pretty confident that the policy was faulty, otherwise you're risking your job.
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.