OUR MISTAKE, BUT BILL STILL WARRANTS CONCERN

We made a mistake in Friday's editorial about passage of legislation
restricting access to decongestants to reduce the number of methamphetamine
labs. State Rep. Kevin McCarthy set us straight: Police will need a warrant
to look at the logbooks of pharmacies selling many decongestants containing
pseudoephedrine because the bill makes these medicines Schedule V drugs,
and a warrant is required under state law for police to obtain information
about sales of those drugs.

Some pseudoephedrine products, however, would not be Schedule V. According
to McCarthy, for police to look at the log behind a non-pharmacy store
counter -- the one to track who buys small quantities of liquids and
liquid-filled gel-caps -- one of three things would be needed: a warrant,
consent or an emergency situation.

The problem is the bill doesn't explicitly state a warrant is needed to see
logbooks for products sold over the counter. Adding to the confusion, the
bill does require that a sign be posted at non-pharmacy counters telling
customers that they are required to sign a logbook that may be accessible
to law enforcement officers. That may lead clerks to think they have to
hand over the logbook to any officer who asks.

They don't.

Now we know that. No one is required to show a logbook to an officer
without a warrant.

And a warrant is the best way to protect everyone's rights.