MY BOOK, MY BUSINESS

What you read is your own business. Reading books about illegal activity is
not a crime, and it does not prove that the reader has committed a crime.

These are bedrock principles of a free society. The state's highest court
has said so. Anyone who values freedom and privacy should be grateful.

Two years ago, drug agents searched a trailer home in Thornton. In the
master bedroom there, officers found a methamphetamine lab. Nearby, there
were two books: "Advanced Techniques of Clandestine Psychedelic and
Amphetamine Manufacture," by Uncle Fester, and "Advanced Techniques of
Clandestine Psychedelic & Amphetamine Manufacture," by Jack B. Nimble.

Previously, the agents had searched the trash can near the trailer. There,
they found an invoice addressed to "Suspect A" (an unidentified man living
in the home) from the Tattered Cover Bookstore in Denver, along with a
mailing envelope. The invoice included a billing number, order number and
customer phone number, but it did not reveal the title of the books that
had been mailed to Suspect A from the Tattered Cover.

A federal Drug Enforcement Administration agent then subpoenaed Tattered
Cover owner Joyce Meskis, demanding that she furnish the titles of the
books associated with the invoice addressed to Suspect A. She refused.

Then, police officers obtained a search warrant for the purchase records of
the suspect. Six cops darkened the Tattered Cover's door to execute the
warrant. Meskis stood her ground, got a temporary injunction, and filed suit.

The Tattered Cover argued that government intrusion into the private
book-buying habits of citizens would have a "chilling effect" on the
willingness of customers to buy controversial books.

A Denver district court ruled against the bookstore, which appealed the
judgment to the state Supreme Court. On Monday, the high court overturned
the lower ruling.

The Supreme Court held that the search warrant violated the First Amendment
and the Colorado Constitution. "Without the right to receive information
and ideas, the protection of speech under the United States and Colorado
Constitutions would be meaningless," the court said. "It makes no
difference that one can voice whatever view one wishes to express if others
are not free to listen to these thoughts."

The court ruled that police can't just barge into a bookstore or library,
warrant in hand, and see what people are reading. The police must
demonstrate a "compelling" need for this information. And a bookstore or
library has the right to a court hearing first, in which the government
would try to prove its need for the information. In this hearing, a judge
might decide that the police have other means of collecting the information
they seek. Finally, a judge would have to balance the police officers' need
for the information against the harm done to constitutional rights.

In the Thornton case, the police were trying to establish which resident of
the trailer home built the meth lab. As it happens, Suspect A's clothes
were in the master bedroom, and there were fingerprints on the glassware of
the meth lab. There is no public indication that police ever attempted to
match the prints on the glassware to the suspect. Furthermore, the police
seem to have enough evidence to prosecute the prime suspect.

Suspect A's book-buying habits were not central to proving that he was
synthesizing drugs. That much is self-evident. Owning a copy of "Das
Kapital" doesn't make someone a Marxist. Reading "Steal This Book" doesn't
prove someone's a thief.

When the government ignores such nuances, people are deterred from
following their intellectual inquiries. That is inimical to free thought
and hostile to our form of government. That's what makes this week's ruling
so momentous.