Got a warrant?

[hnumpah]

Library confrontation points up privacy dilemma
By JOHN CURRAN, Associated Press Writer

RANDOLPH, Vt. - Children's librarian Judith Flint was getting ready for the monthly book discussion group for 8- and 9-year-olds on "Love That Dog" when police showed up.
 
They weren't kidding around: Five state police detectives wanted to seize Kimball Public Library's public access computers as they frantically searched for a 12-year-old girl, acting on a tip that she sometimes used the terminals.

Flint demanded a search warrant, touching off a confrontation that pitted the privacy rights of library patrons against the rights of police on official business.

"It's one of the most difficult situations a library can face," said Deborah Caldwell-Stone, deputy director of intellectual freedom issues for the American Library Association.

Investigators did obtain a warrant about eight hours later, but the June 26 standoff in the 105-year-old, red brick library on Main Street frustrated police and had fellow librarians cheering Flint.

"What I observed when I came in were a bunch of very tall men encircling a very small woman," said the library's director, Amy Grasmick, who held fast to the need for a warrant after coming to the rescue of the 4-foot-10 Flint.

Library records and patron privacy have been hot topics since the passage of the U.S. Patriot Act after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Library advocates have accused the government of using the anti-terrorism law to find out ? without proper judicial oversight or after-the-fact reviews ? what people research in libraries.

But the investigation of Brooke Bennett's disappearance wasn't a Patriot Act case.

"We had to balance out the fact that we had information that we thought was true that Brooke Bennett used those computers to communicate on her MySpace account," said Col. James Baker, director of the Vermont State Police. "We had to balance that out with protecting the civil liberties of everybody else, and this was not an easy decision to make."

Brooke, from Braintree, vanished the day before the June 26 confrontation in the children's section of the tiny library. Investigators went to the library chasing a lead that she had used the computers there to arrange a rendezvous.

Brooke was found dead July 2. An uncle, convicted sex offender Michael Jacques, has since been charged with kidnapping her. Authorities say Jacques had gotten into her MySpace account and altered postings to make investigators believe she had run off with someone she met online.

Flint was firm in her confrontation with the police.

"The lead detective said to me that they need to take the public computers and I said `OK, show me your warrant and that will be that,'" said Flint, 56. "He did say he didn't need any paper. I said `You do.' He said `I'm just trying to save a 12-year-old girl,' and I told him `Show me the paper.'"

Cybersecurity expert Fred H. Cate, a law professor at Indiana University, said the librarians acted appropriately.

"If you've told all your patrons `We won't hand over your records unless we're ordered to by a court,' and then you turn them over voluntarily, you're liable for anything that goes wrong," he said.

A new Vermont law that requires libraries to demand court orders in such situations took effect July 1, but it wasn't in place that June day. The library's policy was to require one.

The librarians did agree to shut down the computers so no one could tamper with them, which had been a concern to police.

Once in police hands, how broadly could police dig into the computer hard drives without violating the privacy of other library patrons?

Baker wouldn't discuss what information was gleaned from the computers or what state police did with information about other people, except to say the scope of the warrant was restricted to the missing girl investigation.

"The idea that they took all the computers, it's like data mining," said Caldwell-Stone. "Now, all of a sudden, since you used that computer, your information is exposed to law enforcement and can be used in ways that (it) wasn't intended."
============================
I'd say Flint deserves a medal.

[BT]

Agreed

[Stray Pooch]

I disagree completely.

This is the kind of ridiculous reasoning that gives civil libertarianism a bad name.

There are simple solutions to this dilemma that do not involve blocking an ongoing attempt to rescue a child.  Anything on that computer not directly related to the case is automatically useless as evidence under the fourth amendment.  Even the information related to the case is subject to suppression under the fourth, though probable cause may apply.  But if the information can be used to track down the child before she is murdered, SCREW the privacy of the pervs downloading porn, the guys perusing the "how to make a bomb" sites and the idiots trying to prove government conspiracies.  Nothing found there can be used against them anyway. 

And this little idiot who insists that everything must be absolutely perfect for her to give up her precious "privacy" and avoid liability (Yeah, let the the kid die just so long as I don't get sued) is just like any other idiotic bureaucrat who says "I'm sorry, you have to fill out this form in triplicate and file an environmental impact statement before we can process you request for emergency medical care."

What ACTUAL harm would have come to ANYONE by allowing these officers access to these computers?  None.  No matter what was on that computer, it wouldn't have hurt anyone.  Further, these are not PRIVATE computers.  They are PUBLIC ACCESS computers.  That means you can't expect the kind of privacy you might want to expect at home. 

There are times when this librarian's stand would have been absolutely correct.  If they came in insisting on seeing the account of a specific patron involved in the drug trade or some other crime with less immediate need, then yes, get the paper.  If they came in looking for information on a suspected environmental extremist group or peace protesters, get the paper signed in triplicate with that impact statement.  If they want to see if the creepy guy down the block has been dowloading kiddie porn, ditto.  Even if they think Al Quaeda has been downloading bomb plans, get it right.  There may be some potential immediacy to there need (like AQ might be planning to bomb City Hall in five minutes) but unless there is absolute knowledge of that and something on that computer might prevent it, they need to stick to the fourth on principle if nothing else.  I was on guard duty in AIT and stopped some MPs, including a Sergeant Major, from entering the site because there was classified material and they were not on the access list.  They claimed authority over the whole post, but I told them my duty superceded theirs.  (Mind you, there was no emergency, they were just patrolling.)  A badge does not equate to absolute authority. 

But when an immediate threat to the child's life is involved, DAMN the red tape and lofty concepts.  If the stuff is inadmissible but we save the child's life, fine.  Let the courts decide that. 

I DIRECTLY compare this librarian's actions with those moronic Muslim moral policemen who let the children in that Saudi girl's school burn rather than come out because they had no head coverings.  The results were, of course, not the same, but the mindset is exactly so.  Procedures are more important than people.  Lofty concepts are more important than saving lives.  RESPECT MA AUTHORITY!  And they portray the cops as power-mad. 

This is, of course, New England we are speaking of here, so the idiocy (and subsequent cheering crowds) does not surprise me.

[Amianthus]

Sorry Pooch, I disagree. In this case, it would take mere minutes for the police to get a warrant, and it could have been faxed to the library. Probably in the time it took to argue with the lady.

Police have gotten lazy and rely on "probable cause" way too much and the courts have let them get away with it far too often.

[fatman]

I also disagree with you pooch.  While the reasoning of your position is valid, the issue that I have is that once you start sliding and appeasing the demands of law enforcement, then you've set a precedent that is nearly impossible to roll back.  It is better (though in this case tragic) not to have set the precedent in the first place.

[Xavier_Onassis]

They should have brought the warrant with them. Cops are supposed to know the law.


They were not professionals, and did not behave professionally.

[hnumpah]

Sorry, Poochster, but I gotta go with the librarian. People were told they had a reasonable expectation of privacy by the library, and that includes whatever was on the computers. All the police would have had to do was show up with the warrant in hand, and it doesn't take that long to talk to a judge and get one if they believe time is of the essence. They screwed up and wasted time by not doing so.

Kudos to Ms Flint.

[Stray Pooch]

You're all wrong and I'm right, damn it!

Seriously, this is the kind of logic that defies common sense. 

I used to say that if the ERA was passed (remember that, the Equal Rights Amendment?) I would start going into women's shower rooms, because separate but equal is not equal.   The law is the law, right?

Turns out, that's nonsense.  No judge is going to allow me to ogle the ladies in the shower based on Brown vs. Board.  He's gonna say, "that's not what the decision was about, or what the ERA is about.  It doesn't apply, you are a perv, enjoy your stay in prison and don't forget to register for the list when you get out."

The slippery slope argument is NOT as strong as people think.  It is valid, to be sure, but there are real situations and Bravo Sierra.  NOBODY on the internet has a reasonable expectation of privacy - even in your own home and CERTAINLY not in a public library.  This has been established and proven time after time.  Just watch an episode of "To Catch a Predator" or whatever that show is.  Policemen are NOT getting lazy because they think a child's life is more important than a silly technicality.  It may have only taken a few minutes.  Those few minutes just might have saved a life.  I think the tight-assed librarian has been waiting for decades to have a chance to "fight the power" and found a good excuse to live out her "Freedom Fighter" fantasy.  She protected NOBODY by her stand, either immediately or potentially.  Oh, I take that back.  She might have protected the perv that killed the little girl.  That's important because, after all, child murderers have the right to privacy.  But I'd bet a good week's wages that she calls soldiers "baby killers" under her breath.

If that had been my child I'd be in jail right now for knocking her in the teeth on principle.  She's not a hero.  She's an idiot.

[hnumpah]

No, Pooch, you're not.

From the article:

Cybersecurity expert Fred H. Cate, a law professor at Indiana University, said the librarians acted appropriately.

"If you've told all your patrons `We won't hand over your records unless we're ordered to by a court,' and then you turn them over voluntarily, you're liable for anything that goes wrong," he said.

Additionally:

A new Vermont law that requires libraries to demand court orders in such situations took effect July 1, but it wasn't in place that June day. The library's policy was to require one.

Policy or not, requiring a warrant was justified. Under the Constitution, people are entitled to expect a reasonable right to privacy. That would include library records of what books you have checked out, and any and all records they might have of what your used their computers for. They are responsible for safeguarding that information, to the extent that they have any control over it. Granted, they can't control, or reasonably be expected to completely safeguard, anything that you do on a public web site, but to the extent that they can protect your privacy, they are charged with doing so. This means denying access to any records they might have concerning your activities on the internet, unless they are presented with a warrant.

And for the record, I don't think there should be any exception under the (Non-)Patriot Act, either.

[Lanya]

This new-fangled "requires a warrant" stuff will never fly. 
I mean, who could have predicted they might need one? Not a police force and certainly not a judge.  Just let them look through everything any time.
(Not.)

Seriously...letting police paw through files without a warrant is like  giving up your right to bear arms. 

[Stray Pooch]

No, Pooch, you're not.

Yes I am.  I always am.  Just ask me.

But don't ask my wife . . .

"If you've told all your patrons `We won't hand over your records unless we're ordered to by a court,' and then you turn them over voluntarily, you're liable for anything that goes wrong," he said.

I saw that.  My post even reacted to it.  I think refusing to help a child because you might get sued is cowardice. 

A new Vermont law that requires libraries to demand court orders in such situations took effect July 1, but it wasn't in place that June day. The library's policy was to require one.

Actually, I missed that on first reading, and it changes my perspective towards the librarian.  Even though the law was not in effect yet, clearly she would have been aware of it and it would have influenced her actions considerably.  That makes a difference, I concede.  She's not an idiot.  The spirit of such a law is reasonable, given the fourth amendment, but I do NOT think the law would be appropriately applied to a life threatening situation.  I think the librarian could have allowed access (and, indeed, legally had no obligation to obey a law not yet in effect).  But knowing that such a law was about to go into effect (and considering the probable discussion and controversy that would have preceded its passing) her decision makes a lot more sense.

Policy or not, requiring a warrant was justified. Under the Constitution, people are entitled to expect a reasonable right to privacy. That would include library records of what books you have checked out, and any and all records they might have of what your used their computers for. They are responsible for safeguarding that information, to the extent that they have any control over it. Granted, they can't control, or reasonably be expected to completely safeguard, anything that you do on a public web site, but to the extent that they can protect your privacy, they are charged with doing so. This means denying access to any records they might have concerning your activities on the internet, unless they are presented with a warrant.

That is your opinion.  I disagree.  I do NOT think your web usage in a library is private.  It isn't even private in your own home.  I agree in principle with your ideal that nobody (libraries or otherwise) should arbitrarily allow access to your personal records.  As I said before, if this were a non-immediate situation, the library is right and should stand firm.  Plenty of time to get a warrant and do it right.  But when a life is at stake, you don't stand on concepts.  I think we take far more for granted than the constitution grants, and while I am all for expanding the freedoms it enumerates (and demanding the ones it does not) I believe the right to life on the part of a child supercedes the right to privacy on the part of her murderer.  It also supercedes the right to privacy for every other patron in that library.  By far.  Not even a question.

And for the record, I don't think there should be any exception under the (Non-)Patriot Act, either.

I don't think the Patriot Act is an issue in this case (whether or not it was cited).  Common sense supercedes legal idealism.

[Stray Pooch]

Seriously...letting police paw through files without a warrant is like  giving up your right to bear arms. 

Not even close. 

If a police officer comes into a situation where you are holding your legally owned weapon on a person who has just attempted to rob you and he (the cop) doesn't know what's going on, he will very likely draw his weapon and tell you to drop yours.  You are not being forced to give up your right to bear arms.  You are being told to comply with a police officer who is just trying to protect lives.  He will very likely cuff you as well.  That violates your right to liberty.  If you refuse to drop the weapon, he may kill you.  That violates your right to life.  And he would be right in all of those cases.  If you comply, you will be released and get your weapon back after all of the facts are known, probably with a nice apology.  But a cop can't be expected to take the word of a gun-wielding man that he is the "good guy."  You're not giving up your right to bear arms in that case.

This is the same.  You're not losing a right.  You are complying with police in an emergency.  Now to be fair, the situation I described above is more immediate than the one in the library, as the threat is presently observed and not just potential.  But the library situation is just that more immediate than, say, some bomb-making or kiddie porn situation.

Whether somebody looks at your library records with a nice piece of paper in hand or not the effect will be the same.  The only difference is, if they have the piece of paper and you have been downloading kiddy porn while they are looking for someone else, they can now LEGALLY drag your butt to jail too.   They were in a legal search and came upon your illegal activity reasonably.  If they have no warrant, the case goes out the window. 

In fact, had they found the stuff on the computer w/o a warrant even the perp might not have had to worry about the evidence because it would potentially be tainted.  I'd risk that to save a child.

[Plane]

Who exactly would have been harmed by allowing the police to open one of the computers and how?

When I go to the Liabrary I use their computers without even knowing who was previous , coouldn't a Policeman sit at a computer there as well as any other citizen?

[hnumpah]

I do NOT think your web usage in a library is private.  It isn't even private in your own home.

Certainly, someone might be able to hack into my computer, or the server, and see exactly what I do on the computer. That puts me under no obligation to give that information up voluntarily to anyone, unless they have a warrant. And that is my point. Regardless of what capabilities someone might have as far as being able to hack into the system and get the information, the library was under no obligation to give the information up themselves without a warrant.

[hnumpah]

I believe the right to life on the part of a child supercedes the right to privacy on the part of her murderer.  It also supercedes the right to privacy for every other patron in that library.  By far.  Not even a question.

Then what you believe conflicts with the Constitution of the United States.