Posted on 04/08/2002 2:04:42 PM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
Court Overturns Bookstore Ruling
Colorado Supreme Court Refuses to Order Bookstore to Turn Over Sales Records on How-To Drug Books
D E N V E R, April 8 — The Colorado Supreme Court refused to order a bookstore Monday to tell police who bought two how-to books on making illegal drugs, saying the First Amendment and state Constitution protect the right to purchase books anonymously.
The unanimous 6-0 decision overturns a ruling by a Denver judge who said Tattered Cover Book Store owner Joyce Meskis must give records of the sale to a Denver-area drug task force.
Police and prosecutors in the closely watched case had argued that the buyer's identity was critical to their investigation of a methamphetamine lab and that they had no other way to prove who owned the books.
But the high court declared that the First Amendment and the Colorado Constitution "protect an individual's fundamental right to purchase books anonymously, free from governmental interference."
Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, said the ruling makes Colorado law the most protective in the nation of a bookseller's right to protect the identity of its customers. Colorado's Supreme Court is the only one to rule on the issue, Finan said.
"It is a huge relief and just a thoughtful and well-reasoned decision by the court for which we are very grateful," Meskis said.
Police sought the records after finding a mailer envelope from the bookstore outside a mobile home they had raided. Inside the home were a methamphetamine lab and the how-to books "Advanced Techniques of Clandestine Psychedelic and Amphetamine Manufacture" by Uncle Fester and "The Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories" by Jack B. Nimble.
The envelope was printed with an invoice number and the trailer's address, but no name. Police found no fingerprints on the books and obtained a search warrant to find out who ordered them. Police suspected the man who lived in the master bedroom where the lab was found, but needed proof.
The court said Monday that the search warrant should never have been issued.
Tattered Cover, one of the country's largest independent bookstores, had argued that the order violated its customers' First Amendment rights. It was assisted in the case by the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression.
So far, no arrests have been made in the drug case pending the outcome of the court challenge.
Bob Grant, who as the district attorney in adjacent Adams District refused to go after a search warrant, forcing police to go to the Denver district attorney, said the ruling sets a higher standard than the one established by the U.S. Supreme Court.
He said the ruling will force prosecutors to show a compelling need, as opposed to just the "substantial and legitimate interest" required in most states.
Prosecutors could still go back to court with more evidence to meet the higher standard.
Sue Armstrong, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, said the ruling does not prohibit police from getting records but sets the bar higher for obtaining a search warrant.
"The court has showed its best face in protecting the rights of privacy for those of us who visit bookstores," Armstrong said.
Bookstore records became an issue in 1998 during the investigation of President Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Independent counsel Ken Starr subpoenaed Lewinsky's purchase records from the Washington bookstore Kramerbooks. After Kramerbooks challenged the subpoena, Lewinsky's defense team voluntarily turned over the records.
In another case, a Borders bookstore in Overland Park, Kan., successfully fought a subpoena issued in a drug investigation for records of how a customer paid for merchandise. Investigators were not trying to find out what books the customer bought.
Nuff Said
Then the lawsuit would have been filed in federal court...
What is sad is that it took a State Supreme Court ruling to figure this no-brainer out.
Please elaborate. How is this bizarre? Does the government have a right to know what books I've purchased? Should booksellers compile a database on who bought what?
What makes you so sure?
Interesting noms de plume (or at least I'm assuming.)
I'll assume you are a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Imagine a crime scene where the police find a gun that was used, still having a price tag attached to it that reads "Joe Bob's Guns".
You would not seriously suggest that the police have no right to go to Joe Bob's Guns and ask to see the record of who that gun was sold to, now would you?
Of course not. In that case, and in this case, the police had a good reason to ask for that record. The item was a piece of evidence of who committed a crime.
There is no government action related to the content of the book itself, they are not criminalizing reading a book. The police are trying to use the book as evidence of who was part of the operation to build a meth lab.
|
|
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.