NO SNOOPING

Court Tells Cops Not to Read over Public's Shoulder

The Colorado Supreme Court's 6-0 decision last week finding that the
Tattered Cover Bookstore in Denver is not required to turn over records
relating to an illegal drug-lab suspect was not quite as sweeping as we
might have liked. Since it was decided under Colorado law, it does not
establish a binding precedent for other states or for federal law enforcement.

Nonetheless, it is a welcome sign that even in the atmosphere surrounding
the war on terror, courts are still willing to give deference to privacy
and First Amendment rights. The fact that national organizations such as
the American Library Association and the ACLU filed briefs and helped to
publicize the case should widen its impact.

The case began two years ago after a drug task force raided an illegal drug
lab and found two books on making methamphetamine and an envelope from the
Tattered Cover. The police then demanded that the bookstore provide
complete sales records for the suspects. Owner Joyce Meskis, who has two
successful independent bookstores in the Denver area, fought the warrant
and got a temporary injunction. A district court then upheld the government
and Meskis appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Although the court based its decision in part on the state constitution's
protection of free speech, it did not declare that book buyers have an
absolute or blanket right to anonymity.

"Because of the strength of other evidence ... and because of the
substantial chilling effects that are likely to result from the execution
of the warrant," the court wrote, "we hold that the city has failed to
demonstrate that its need for this evidence is sufficiently compelling ..."

In other words, the court created a balancing act and - perhaps concerned
that this was a lazy-police-work fishing expedition - balanced the scales
in favor of liberty this time.

Timothy Lynch, Director of the Project on Criminal Justice at the
Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute, notes that the government had argued
police can get warrants to demand records from other businesses, so
prosecutors reasoned, why create an exception for a bookstore? Lynch now
hopes to turn that argument around on authorities.

"I hope this case will serve to give other business owners more protection
from unfocused searches," he said.

Whether it does or not, the decision is a welcome affirmation of judicial
respect for privacy when it comes to reading material.