Pubdate: Wed, 12 Dec 2001
Source: Denver Rocky Mountain News (CO)
Copyright: 2001, Denver Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.rockymountainnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/371
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)

TATTERED COVER'S GOOD FIGHT

The Issue: State Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Releasing Bookstore Records

Our View: They Should Remain Private

If you value your constitutional right to read what you please without 
worrying about government snooping, you owe a vote of thanks to the 
Tattered Cover bookstore for its spirited defense of its customers' privacy.

The North Metro Drug Task Force wants the bookstore to hand over an invoice 
that may, they believe, reveal the name of the customer who ordered two 
books on how to run a clandestine meth lab. The books were found when the 
bedroom lab was raided.

Joyce Meskis, owner of the Tattered Cover, believes surrendering the 
invoice to the city of Thornton threatens the First Amendment rights of 
everyone who buys and reads books. The Colorado Supreme Court heard 
arguments on the case Dec. 5, in an unusual session held before a student 
audience in the Brighton High School auditorium. We hope both the students 
and the justices were persuaded that Meskis is right.

The First Amendment is relevant in this case because the reason police want 
to link the books to a suspect in the case is the books' content; they're 
how-to books for committing a crime. If police sought hardware-store 
invoices for the glassware found in the raid, there would be no 
constitutional problem.

Meskis doesn't claim, nor do prior court rulings establish, that 
information about what books people buy enjoys absolute constitutional 
protection. Rather -- as both parties to the case agreed in asking the 
Supreme Court to hear the case directly -- the issue is how courts should 
balance an individual's right to read certain books, and the bookstore's 
right to sell them, "against law enforcement's desire to aggressively 
investigate criminal violations."

To overcome the legal presumption that law enforcement can't demand access 
to book-buying records, officers have to demonstrate that they have a 
compelling need for that specific information and that they have exhausted 
every other method of obtaining equivalent information.

The invoice record at issue can't meet either test. It may not relate to 
the suspect under investigation and it may not include the two meth books. 
And even if it does, it is not illegal to buy, to own or to read them.

Furthermore, at the time the task force obtained its search warrant, it 
hadn't completed analyzing physical evidence from the lab or interviewing 
other suspects, so it couldn't possibly have known that the Tattered 
Cover's records were essential.

If the Supreme Court were to accept Thornton's arguments in such a case, 
law enforcement agencies would gain authority to go after book- buying 
records for anyone involved, however innocently, in a criminal case. In 
fact, the task force originally sought records of all books purchased by 
the suspect. The trial court limited them to just a single invoice, and it 
is the trial court's ruling that the Supreme Court should overturn.
- ---
MAP posted-by: GD