RULING MAY AFFECT CASES ELSEWHERE

Attempts by law enforcement to find out who reads or orders certain books
will be on the upswing in the next few years, and the Tattered Cover
opinion will be repeatedly cited by libraries and bookstores to block those
efforts, a Colorado lawyer predicted Monday.

Bruce Jones, who wrote the American Civil Liberties Union brief supporting
the Tattered Cover, said the reason is the government's wars on terrorism
and drugs.

These issues will "arise in the future for no other reason that there is a
provision in the so-called Patriot Act that will raise these very issues,"
Jones said. "There was a provision in the act about being able to go after
library and bookstore records. I think this case will serve as a guidepost
to other courts when those issues arise in the terrorist arena, just as the
court today issued its order in the drug arena."

Chris Finan, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression, said Monday that there has been an "alarming increase" in the
number of bookstore subpoenas and search warrants since independent counsel
Kenneth Starr subpoenaed Monica Lewinsky's book purchase records in 1998.
In the past two years, there have been four cases involving search warrants
or subpoenas for bookstore customer information, Finan said, but in each,
the bookstores resisted the demands. Two cases were in Kansas, and there
was one each in Ohio and the District of Columbia.

Finan said that although the Tattered Cover decision will apply only to
Colorado courts, other courts will look to it for insight.

"The Colorado Supreme Court has issued the strongest opinion by any court
on the importance of protecting customer privacy in bookstores," Finan said.

Jones said the Tattered Cover ruling is "very significant in two respects.

"One is that the court has again reiterated the broader protection for free
speech activities under the Colorado Constitution" than under the U.S.
Constitution, Jones said.

"Secondly, despite the fact that there was reliance on the Colorado
Constitution, I nonetheless believe the case has national import because of
the care with which the court analyzed the case and analyzed the issues
both substantively and procedurally."