Thank you, Judith Flint and Amy Grasmick, for being true patriots, courageous beings, and guardians of our limping 4th ammendment. I aspire to show your type of courage in my daily life.

Thank you Brattleboro Reformer for printing the important news that so many other media outlets ignore. And thank goodness for the strong people of Vermont who so often lead the way toward our progressive ideals.

Peace

My god, it took guts for Judith Flint to stand up to five detectives who were "just trying to save" one 12-yr-old girl -- from what? It took five detectives, not one of which remembered a little thing called the Fourth Amendment, to save a girl using the computers to access her MySpace account? I truly shudder to think what might have happened to Ms. Flint in this day and age when she turned them down flat. There are places in this country, and even Vermont might one day become one of them, where such a stance could end up with her imprisonment for noncooperation. By law the police don't have a choice about search warrants, but increasingly that is coming to be less true. If a judge says they don't need one, they don't.

Good for you, Ms. Flint. I don't know if you will ever read these comments but you honored us all with your courage in standing up to those cops and in standing up for the Fourth Amendment. Thank you.

VT Governor James Douglas, a not-too-bright Bush sycophant, should be called to answer for the behavior of the VT State Police.

Reading the text of the amendment here I'm struck by how clear, concise and unambiguous it is. Also how modern it sounds. Quite a document that Constitution.

All law enforcement personnel should be required to attend a Constitution review course as often as they are required to attend firearm training sessions.

In NY, for example, State Police Officers receive 90 hours of firearms training, then semi-annual 5 hour in-service firearms sessions throughout their careers.

Is that too much to ask of those who have volunteered to "protect and serve?"

Nice story, but why is CD ignoring the story of much more serious police malfeance in Shenandoah, PA, where six well-known teen age high schoolers on the football team beat Mexican immigrant and father of two Luis Ramierez, to death? They shouted racist slurs and theratened Mexican friends trying to come to his aid.

Almost two weeks later, authorities still deny race had anything to do with it, and no charges have been filed. The kids walk free.

The original (largely buried) story:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ats-ap-immigrant-killing-studentsjul18,0,896120.story?track=rss

Democracy Now's story:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/24/friend_of_mexican_immigrant_beaten_to

...

Real patriots defend the Constitution!

Thank you Judith Flint.

frank1569

Is that too much to ask of those who have volunteered to "protect and serve?"

_______________________________________________

I think they dropped the "serve" a few decades ago...

The original reason for not having a warrant, although in fact arrogance, was that they were just trying to save a 12yo girl -- with the implication that they had not got time for formalities. They did return a few fours later (the article linked to shows 8 hours) with a warrant. It was so urgent and life-threatening it took 8 (or even a few) hours to get a warrant? I don't think so.

The death of the Mexican immigrant is sad and disgusting. Lou Dobbs and Rush have been doing their part to inflame hate toward immigrants and all brown people. Brutes are not going to check for passports and working papers before becoming violent.
The story should be covered somewhere.
<>

Hooray for Judith Flint and her boss, library director Amy Grasmick. They are real Americans. Judith Flint defines what a hero really is.

As to the illegal immigrant. Perhaps it would be well to get all the facts before rushing to judgement. It could turn out to be like the Duke rape case or Jena 6.

Better to be sure of your facts before deciding.

.
Hooray....for brave Librarians who stand up for our civil rights.............

Those who would trample on our rights, and our "Due Process";
in the name of security, are fascists !!!!!!!!!!

.

While you Jack Webb types were harassing people in pain how many real crimes were being committed?

I had something similar (but far more common and far more low-key) happen to me a couple of weeks ago. Someone had called in an anonymous tip that my 4 y/o nephew was wandering around outside, a blatant lie (most likely called in by my nephew's father, a 10 hour car ride away). The anonymous caller also implied that I was a drug dealer (a laughable notion if you know me).

The police who showed up to check on things seemed to understand that the call was innaccurate (his question was "do you have any enemies in the neighborhood?") and even commented about my children's good behavior and happiness. After all this, he asks to do a "walk through" of my house, for drugs. I told him that he'd have to get a warrant, as I was feeling rather uneasy about the authoritarian direction the nation as a whole had taken the past few years. He continued to try and talk me into the walkthrough, using language like "you understand why your refusal would make me suspicious" and other such tripe. My simple response was "I understand, and it would probably be far more convenient for me to let you do your 'walk-through', but there is a process for such things, and I'm willing to accept the inconvenience of the process." He then left, and I've heard nothing from them since. In fact, my sister has an acquaintance that is a cop, and she asked him to look us up in their computer, the only record of the incident was that it had been made, checked on by and officer, and there was nothing to it.

Don't fear the shiny piece of tin they wear, it is in no way a badge of divinity or even superiority.

More than any other profession I can think of, librarians have remained admirably steadfast in affirming civil liberties during the Reign of Terror that began when a corrupt and malfeasant Supreme Court appointed the War Criminal-in-Chief as President of the United States.

A Congress supposedly populated by principled Constitutional scholars crumpled like a square of used toilet paper, and couldn't pass abominations from the "Patriot Act" to the FISA legislation fast enough-- even our vaunted professor of Constitutional law scrambled on board THAT bandwagon. Their corporate and academic co-conspirators wasted no time throwing civil liberties overboard to participate in an orgy of lawless and (literally) unwarranted surveillance.

In this frenzy of hysterical or venal enthusiasm for flinging down the Constitution and dancing upon it, the librarians have typically heroically resisted the government's tyranny.

I nominate them all for the anti-Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Coming from a state where a County Sheriff killed 5 innocent kids, Is it not in the interest of Public Safety for every American to walk in to their local Police Department and ask for the Psychological screening of every officer.

The article also goes on to report: "Brooke, from Braintree, vanished the day before the June 26 confrontation in the children's section of the tiny library. Investigators went to the library chasing a lead that she had used the computers there to arrange a rendezvous.

Brooke was found dead July 2. An uncle, convicted sex offender Michael Jacques, has since been charged with kidnapping her. Authorities say Jacques had gotten into her MySpace account and altered postings to make investigators believe she had run off with someone she met online."

I don't think they tried to trample the 4th. They (the police) felt the life of a child was at stake(time was critical)and were hoping that the librarian would be understanding of the situation.

But doesn't that come to the same thing, imfedup?

Certainly, there were exigent circumstances. And since law enforcers have to routinely cope with life-and-death situations, and every variety of evil, wicked, mean, bad, nasty, and psycho perp, there are often exigent circumstances.

And in hindsight, a tragic outcome that might have been avoided had constitutional due process not been observed reinforces the impulse to leniency in sticking to the law.

But it would be absurd to encourage persons in positions like the librarians' to waive or wink at constitutional constraints; it seems to me unwise to put those seeking to uphold constitutional civil liberties on the defensive.

I'm not saying that you're saying this. But if it became generally acceptable for guardians and gatekeepers of private, privileged information to yield to authorities due to exigent circumstances, the person who insists on following the law comes off as a petty or prissy stickler-- an irritating obstructionist at best, and an abettor of the criminal at worst.

The rule of law is more than mere foolish consistency. Get the warrant. It's unfair and pernicious of law enforcers to proceed on the basis of hoping the librarian will do them a favor, and cut them some slack. Of course when a child's life, or anyone's life for that matter, is at stake the impulse is to say, "Well, no harm in asking".

But there is.

1930's Build up to the War in Europe and the Holocaust.

DHS---- is What???

Gestapo - contraction of Geheime Staatspolizei: "Secret State Police") was the official secret police of Nazi Germany

FEMA----is What??????

Under the overall administration of the Schutzstaffel (SS)
administered by the Reichssicherheitshauptamt (RSHA) ("head office of the Reich's security service") and was considered a dual organization of the Sicherheitsdienst (SD)
("security service") and also a suboffice of the Sicherheitspolizei (SIPO) ("security police").

The Gestapo had the authority to investigate treason, espionage and sabotage cases, and cases of criminal attacks on the Nazi Party and Germany. A law passed by the government in 1936 gave the Gestapo carte blanche to operate without judicial oversight. The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue the state to conform to laws. As early as 1935, however, a Prussian administrative court had ruled that the Gestapo's actions were not subject to judicial review.[1]

A further law passed later in the year gave the Gestapo responsibility for setting up and administering concentration camps.
The power of the Gestapo most open to misuse was called Schutzhaft - "protective custody", a euphemism for the power to imprison people without judicial proceedings. The person imprisoned even had to sign his or her own Schutzhaftbefehl, an order declaring that the person had requested imprisonment (presumably out of fear of personal harm). In addition, thousands of political prisoners throughout Germany – and from 1941, throughout the occupied territories under the Night and Fog Decree – simply disappeared under Gestapo custody.

Our path in destiny for America is headed toward a head on collision with Germanys 1930-1945 history.

Have we forgotten how the Holocaust came to fruition?
6 million Jews taken, killed, disappereared.

BornFreeMen

Little Brother,

Thank you for the response. (So hard these days to get anyone to be civil about these discussions.) I agree that the 4th should be defended rigorously. But as noted in the arguments of COOLIDGE v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, 403 U.S. 443 (1971):

"The State proposes three distinct theories to bring the facts of this case within one or another of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. In considering them, we must not lose sight of the Fourth Amendment's fundamental guarantee. Mr. Justice Bradley's admonition in his opinion for the Court almost a century ago in Boyd [403 U.S. 443, 454] v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 , is worth repeating here:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon." 4

Thus the most basic constitutional rule in this area is that "searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se [403 U.S. 443, 455] unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment - subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions." 5 The exceptions are "jealously and carefully drawn," 6 and there must be "a showing by those who seek exemption . . . that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative." 7 "[T]he burden is on those seeking the exemption to show the need for it." 8 In times of unrest, whether caused by crime or racial conflict or fear of internal subversion, this basic law and the values that it represents may appear unrealistic or "extravagant" to some. But the values were those of the authors of our fundamental constitutional concepts. In times not altogether unlike our own they won - by legal and constitutional means in England, 9 and by revolution on this continent - a right of personal security against arbitrary intrusions by official power. If times have changed, reducing everyman's scope to do as he pleases in an urban and industrial world, the changes have made the values served by the Fourth Amendment more, not less, important."

As stated before, I feel these men were not trying to break the law. The law allows for "exigent circumstances" I feel that the framers and the courts did allow for common sense to come into play here.
Either way I grieve for the outcome.

anabolic original steroids The Gestapo had the authority to investigate treason, espionage and sabotage cases, and cases of criminal attacks on the Nazi Party and Germany. A law passed by the government in 1936 gave the Gestapo carte blanche to operate without judicial oversight. The Gestapo was specifically exempted from responsibility to administrative courts, where citizens normally could sue the state to conform to laws. As early as 1935, however, a Prussian administrative court had ruled that the Gestapo's actions were not subject to judicial review.

I am 61 and a retired teacher. I taught for the state youth authority, wards of the state, all "convicted" felons. I did that job for almost 17 years. Personally, my contact with the police is limited to a motor vehicle infraction every 15 years or so. My wife is a full professor at a state university. Also of limited police involvement. We have lived in this house for 15 years. Do you see the background? O.K.

Add to this that we are both legally disabled.

My son, who was 22 at the time, had two couples over to party in the garage. All were of legal age. A disagreement ensued and a fight because one girl did not like the other girl. The boyfriends were defending the honor of the maidens. I heard the ruckus, went out and stopped the boxing match and chased them all the hell off my property. I have expensive equipment in my garage.

About a half hour later, after I had gone back into the house while my son cleaned up the mess, two county sheriff cruisers pull up. I hear my son explaining to them that there is nothing going on, civil in his manner. The "complaint" was made by one girl, after her and her boyfriend left. She called the police and filed a false report of a missing underage girl being in my residence. WTF. A third sheriff shows up and he's the supervisor, a sargent, of the other two.

I had been working on my computer but I saw the arrival of the third "officer". I went outside, through the front door, to see what the story was. At this point my son was in the garage with the original two officers. I wanted my son to close the garage door, so I asked the two officers to go out on the driveway. I was unaware of just what brought these people to my house. But I knew it would be hard to get them out of my garage once they were in.

This is when the sargent strolls into my garage. Now, my disability is a nerve disorder. I have trouble breathing, especially when I am under duress. I explain to all three of these fools that they have been duped by a vindictive young person and that there is nothing illegal going on. It was about 11:30 at night, my wife was already asleep. I tell the officers that I need medication, that I am going to go in and then I am going to bed. I use the house door in the garage that goes through the laundry room. This is the side of the house where all the bedrooms are.

I go into the house and go to shut the door. Bang. This "supervising sargent" actually puts his foot in the door, like the proverbial salesman, preventing me from shutting the door to my house. I start to suffer panic, from lack of oxygen, and I start to become indignant at this fool's lack of respect for my rights. I relent because I need my medication and access to my oxygen. I told this fascist calmly, over and over again as I walk through the house to my computer where all my meds were, "This is an illegal entry and search of my home. I am going to document this illegal intrusion into my home. I am going to get a lawyer." I told this fool these exact words three times as he followed me through my house then stood and watched while I tried to keep from passing out.

This event occurred about 18 months ago.

Anybody here still think you have 4th Amendment rights under the Constitution?

I'm sorry DogLeg. Shit, I almost feel that your story is a personal failure of MINE. I'm a citizen of this country and, as such, at least nominally in partial control and responsible for what it does. I'm sorry. I just don't know how to fix it. I'm both unwilling to kill and without the money to buy media time and/or politicians.

Again, probably beating a dead horse, but I'm truly sorry.