TATTERED COVER RULING

Police Were Pros

Re: "Of bravery and bookselling," April 9 editorial.

To read the recent Denver Post editorial on the Tattered Cover case, you
would think the proprietor of that business had stood in the front door of
that wonderful establishment, clutching a copy of the U.S. Constitution,
facing down a battering-ram-wielding SWAT Team. Nothing of the sort occurred.

Professional police officers followed an important lead, and when turned
aside while holding a validly issued search warrant, they left, allowing
the court system to work. If we in law enforcement are going to lose a
high-profile court case, at least treat us with a little dignity.

The Denver Post has the North Metro Drug Task Force stomping on readers'
First Amendment rights. The Colorado Supreme Court envisioned police
rifling through files. The mind's-eye view of such hooliganism would be
entertaining if this was made-for-TV policing. In reality, officers wanted
one piece of information: Who ordered these books? They had everything the
Tattered Cover needed to provide it. Nobody had to rifle through anything.
A digitally adept enterprise such as the Tattered Cover could have laid its
hands on this information in five minutes of terminal tapping, without
having to view purchase records of any other customer.

What strikes me here is the smug, self-righteousness of The Denver Post's
editorial. This wasn't some crusade against outlaw cops. These police
officers followed the law to the letter at every turn. In each case, when
rebuffed by The Tattered Cover, they got with their legal folks and waited
for the judges to rule. I would assume that, though deeply miffed, the cops
are now doing the best they can with what they have left.

Now that the Supreme Court has discovered this new right to purchase
anonymously and left us with another hoop to jump through, law enforcement
will salute smartly and get on with its work. The task force will continue
to effectively deal with dangerous people cooking awful materials in
extremely hazardous conditions - and that should have led The Denver Post
to treat its members a little more honorably.

JIM GREER

Northglenn

The writer is a police sergeant in Lakewood and former Colorado Voices
columnist.

Cash Buys Privacy

The issue was not reader anonymity, nor did it involve the right to read.
Rather, the issue was: May a person give up his or her anonymity? Anyone
has the ability to go to any bookstore, buy a book, pay cash, and remain
anonymous. A bookstore has no right to ask for identification and the
customer has no duty to reveal his name. In this case, the defendant
voluntarily gave his name to the Tattered Cover, put his name in the stream
of commerce and voluntarily relinquished his anonymity.

This decision was not a blow in favor of the First Amendment. Instead this
case established a new confidential communication - that of
customer/bookseller, similar to attorney/client and physician/patient. The
law is full of examples where one may surrender his or her right to
privileged communications by revealing privileges to third parties. Didn't
the customer/defendant here surrender his privilege to anonymously purchase
books when he gave his name to the Tattered Cover?

The Constitution also protects our freedom of movement. Can the police no
longer investigate gasoline credit-card receipts because to do so would
compromise our freedom of movement?

GEORGE H. HASS

Fort Collins

Legal Vs. Right

Re: "Meskis writes chapter on rights," April 9 Diane Carman column.

Something is bothering me. Selling a "how to" book on methamphetamine might
be legal. Whom you sell it to is private. But is it right? The only reason
a store sells a book is to profit. Illegal drug manufacturing and use is a
scourge on our society. Profiting from this scourge is wrong.

Carman quotes a Tattered Cover customer, "We need more people to stand up
for what's right." Joyce Meskis should take a stand against illegal drugs.
It's the right thing to do.

MIKE ENRIGHT

Golden