How do they subpoena records from garden supply stores looking for people who buy too many grow lamps or hydroponic setups? Do they just subpoena all of these stores on a regular basis? What do they claim they are looking for in the subpoenas? My understanding is that you pretty much have to know what you are looking for and be fairly specific about it in the subpoena. If you do not already know who is buying "too many" grow lamps or hydroponic setups, how do you structure the subpoena? The only signed subpoenas that I have seen that were grossly general and unsure of what was needed were either A) Internet related (taking advantage of a seeming lack of knowledge on the part of judges) or B) a case where the person who is being subpoena'd is actually a victim of the crime being investigated. Do you have more information on the garden supply store thing? ok, Rush Carskadden -----Original Message----- From: Greg Broiles [mailto:gbroiles@netbox.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2000 2:45 PM To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net Subject: Re: Denver Judge rules Cops can seize bookstore records Interesting - the article is a little confused on a few points - specifically, this is not the first time this has happened, the DEA subpoena'd records from a publisher of mushroom growing books back in the mid 90's. They also subpoena records from garden supply stores looking for people who buy too many grow lamps or hydroponic setups. Also, it doesn't sound like they're talking about a search warrant - those aren't issued by DA's, nor do their targets have an opportunity to argue about what's searched prior to the search, because the searches take place without notice and at gunpoint. It sounds like they're talking about a subpoena, which does afford the recipient a chance to get an attorney and argue about it prior to releasing information. Still, it's a good reminder that it can be dangerous to trust even good people with sensitive information - the good people may not willingly betray you, but they may be forced to divulge the information on pain of losing money, property, or their life, or it may simply be stolen by armed gangs. At 12:45 PM 10/25/00 -0500, No User wrote:

Real-To: No User <no.user@anon.xg.nu>

"If we can save but one child from the awful scourge of drugs..."

Of course, the real issue here is why the bookstore was keeping such personalized records in the first place.

-------- Judge: Cops can seize bookstore records http://www.denverpost.com/news/news1021b.htm

By Susan Greene Denver Post Staff Writer

Oct. 21, 2000 - Police will be allowed to search customer purchase records at the Tattered Cover Book Store to investigate a narcotics case, a Denver judge ordered Friday.

Civil libertarians decried the order - believed to be the first of its kind nationwide - for protecting law enforcement's ability to obtain evidence over individual rights to read without interference from authorities.

Tattered Cover owner Joyce Meskis said the order could have a "chilling effect" on the First Amendment and on store patrons, who might hesitate to buy books knowing that police have access to their purchase records. She is considering an appeal.

"A bookstore is a house of ideas," she said. "We certainly have the responsibility to protect customers' rights to those ideas, and the right to privacy that goes along with that."

Law enforcers hailed the order as a victory.

"If it only takes one or two records from a bookstore to help us eliminate drugs on the street, then so be it," said Lt. Lori Moriarty, commander of the North Metro Drug Task Force, which is seeking the Tattered Cover records. "We need all the tools possible to help law enforcement do its job."

The controversy stems from a March 14 raid on an Adams County mobile home in which task force members found a methamphetamine lab and two books: "The Construction and Operation of Clandestine Drug Laboratories" by "Jack B. Nimble," and "Advanced Techniques of Clandestine Psychedelic and Amphetamine Manufacture" by "Uncle Fester."

Investigators also found a bookshipping envelope containing an invoice number from the Tattered Cover in Lower Downtown Denver. They are hoping bookstore records will help pinpoint which of the six people who frequented the mobile home bought the books and, presumably, operated the lab.

The task force first sought a search warrant from the Adams County district attorney's office, which rejected the request partially on grounds that executing it would give police a public relations "black eye."

Task force members then turned to the Denver DA's office, which granted the warrant.

Meskis blocked police from going through her store's records, saying they should instead use other investigative measures such as fingerprinting to find their suspect.

Denver District Court temporarily blocked the task force from seizing the records, pending the outcome of a hearing before Judge Stephen Phillips.

Most states have laws protecting public libraries from police searches except under exceptional circumstances, but there is no special law that protects bookstores.

The issue made headlines in 1998, when independent counsel Kenneth Starr subpoenaed two Washington, D.C., bookstores for information on gifts exchanged between President Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Barnes & Noble and Kramerbooks hired lawyers and challenged the subpoena in federal court.

A federal judge quashed Starr's request for the records. Lewinsky, meantime, agreed to testify in exchange for immunity, rendering the whole issue moot.

Still, the case was a watershed for bookstore owners and privacy advocates, who have been watching the Tattered Cover's legal battle with intense interest.

Phillips, in his order, recognized the First Amendment right to "receive information and ideas, regardless of social worth," but he cited a legal balancing test weighing such rights against the importance of law enforcement to investigate crimes.

Phillips ruled that the identity of the drug lab operators is "of significant public interest" and that "the purchase of how-to books is a highly important piece of evidence."

The judge wrote that there's no other reasonable way, aside from seizing store records, for investigators to obtain the information they're seeking. He lauded the task force for asking only for specific invoices, not "stumbl(ing) through other private records."

Phillips deemed the Tattered Cover case "dramatically different" than the Lewinsky case, about which he wrote: "The subpoenas were exploratory in nature, and the government was unable to show any need nor any nexus to a criminal event."

And so Phillips denied investigators' broad request for a month's worth of records that might show all titles purchased by the unnamed suspects. Still, he granted police access to the specific invoice whose number appeared on the book mailer.

Meskis has 15 days to appeal before the task force seizes her records.

Moriarty insists it was never her unit's intent to comb through reading records of the general public. Rather, she said, Phillips' order will give investigators "an important piece of a puzzle" needed to nab their suspect.

Critics say one arrest is a high price to pay for allowing a war against drugs to chip away at civil rights.

"Key principles of the right to privacy and freedom of speech have ultimately been compromised in the decision," said Sue Armstrong, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Colorado.

Judith Krug, director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom at the American Library Association, said she worries that drug investigators unfairly are "making the connection between what people read and what they do."

"Just because you read a book on homosexuality, for example, doesn't mean you're gay. And reading a book on the symptoms of cancer doesn't mean you have the disease," Krug said.

"Our concern is that what people read, what goes into their heads will no longer remain private."

KEY QUESTIONS:

Denver District Judge Stephen Phillips posed four key questions as part of a legal balancing test in his ruling:

1. Is there a legitimate and significant government interest in acquiring the information?

2. Is there a strong nexus between the matter being investigated and the material being sought?

3. Is the information available from another source?

4. Is the intrusion limited in scope so as to prevent exposure of other constitutionally protected matters?

Copyright 2000 The Denver Post. All rights reserved.

Related: Bookstore fights search warrant http://www.denverpost.com/news/news1018d.htm

-- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com