What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
286 Comments
- qwerty246, on 10/12/2007, -15/+190Give them a piece of your mind!!
Mayor Ronald R. Jones
Borough of Hasbrouck Heights
320 Boulevard
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604 USA
Phone: (201)-288-4111
Police Chief Michael Colaneri
Hasbrouck Heights (Bergen County)
248 Hamilton Avenue
Hasbrouck Heights, NJ 07604-1811
Phone: (201) 288-1000
Fax: (201) 288-1691
Bergen County Prosecutor's Office
10 Main Street
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Mon-Fri (201) 646-2300
After Hours (201) 646-2700
Also let's show Ms. Reutty our support! I already sent my email.
Michele Reutty, Director
Free Public Library of Hasbrouck Heights
320 Boulevard, Hasbrouck Heights NJ 07604
E-mail: reutty@bccls.org
TEL: 201-288-0488
FAX: 201-288-6653 - foxmuldr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+142To iceperson: The 4th amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. They cannot be accessed without probable cause, by warrant, supported by Oath or Affirmation, which is what Michele Reutty was insisting on. This woman is a true U.S. patriot, in the finest sense of the word. And I would suggest some education outside of the government-controlled school systems if you would like to learn more. - Rick C. Hodgin
- qwerty246, on 10/12/2007, -3/+86The police are just lazy. It took them no time at all to get the subpoena.
Anyway, if she gave the info to the police, the suspect would've got off the charge because the evidence was collected illegally. - skyspine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+65timmclargehuge, saying that something is paid for and maintained by the government is fairly ridiculous because the people pay for and maintain the government. By default anything it does is funded by us.
- ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -1/+57That librarian deserves a medal.
- sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -7/+61"The 4th amendment was meant to make private citizens secure in their property, not to make the government secure from other branches of government."
Wow, you might want to actually READ the 4th amendment before you GUESS to its contents. But, hey, you are obviously too lazy to understand the Constitution for the country you live in so what should we expect?
We have laws in place that already cover this stuff. What you are advocating for is people, or the government, to ignore the laws when it becomes inconvenient for them. Screw that, I prefer democracy over anarchy. - Alphateam, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51You are the idiot. SHE WAS FOLLOWING THE LAW!!!!!!
Who is she OR the police to interpret the law. That is what the judicial branch of government is for. Hence a subpoena issued by a judge. Amazing how that works.
Go back to government class. - TriSight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+49@Hawk
It's getting old, the whole "it's for the children" or "it's so we can fight terrorism"
What you are basically saying is that its okay to remove any civil liberties and breach anything in the constitution so long as its done in the name of protecting children or fighting terrorism.
That sir, is bunk. - qwerty246, on 10/12/2007, -7/+55Police chief email:
chief@hhpd.com - Akyan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+49What is the point in having laws if they can be so easily disregarded just because one person (police or other) just because a sole person believes it is right. If you allow this to happen then when do you draw the line, which laws can they ignore when they wish, not a good idea really. There is a reason the law exists, and therefore Michele Reutty did exactly the right thing.
- deadlygopher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+48People here must be forgetting that without the people, there is no government. The government is not a separate entity. We have allowed our corrupt representatives to forget that.
- david76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+39This is about more than just upholding the law. It's about ensuring the integrity of the evidence. Without a proper subpoena, it could be argued the evidence was acquired improperly and consequently thrown out.
- Alphateam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+43This makes me flippen mad.
Who do the police think they are? I hate police like this. They are not above the law. I applaud her.
I'll end the rant before I start, it will be way too long. - nixr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+36@hawk
As a parent I would be livid if the police obtained their evidence illegally and were unable to prosecute my child's attacker. The bottom line is if the police had shown up with subpoenas in the first place none of this would be an issue. Stories like this are becoming far too common. Police sidestepping due process for seemingly no reason other than an overabundance of zeal. Ms. Reutty had a tough decision to make especially considering the nature of the request and she should be commended for what she did. She probably saved the police from botching their investigation and ruining their case. - tjordan90, on 10/12/2007, -1/+35"The 4th amendment was meant to make private citizens secure in their property, not to make the government secure from other branches of government."
@Timm: The government simply cannot just claim, "We are government; all records we maintain, we have access to." Even assuming that there is not a conflict between state/municipal/federal governments (which are different sovereigns altogether), the Supreme Court has held that there must be relational basis for a search of the government records. For example, a warrant is not required when the government, acting as employer rather than sovereign, wishes to perform a search on its employees, but only for "noninvestigatory, work-related purposes" that are "reasonable."
My right to privacy, whatever that may be, does not cease to exist simply because I do not physically control my library records. When I signed up for my library card, I do not assent to blanket background checks on my personal borrowing habits. I signed up so I could borrow books. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+37"If you don't want the government to be able to poke around then I'd suggest you don't keep your stuff in property bought and paid for by the government."
@fox
WTF!?
Are you telling me not to use libraries?! - jcostom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30@Hawk
Yeah, you know what? If it was my kid, I would be *grateful* that Ms. Reutty followed the letter of the law. You know how long it takes to get a subpeona for something like this? Minutes. A call from the Police to the DA, a call from the DA to a Judge, done.
If it were my kid, I'd rather the cops spent a few extra minutes following correct procedure than save a few minutes collecting evidence unlawfully, resulting in the suspect getting away with his crime because of a procedural technicality. - tanxadillo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+32Meh, what ever happend to innocent till proven guilty?
- dirtyfratboy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37Wow... The librarian is treading a fine line... Either delay justice or break the law...
I'll admit that it seemed very logical to break the law at that point, but how many "special cases" can occur before the law isn't a law anymore? Laws were created to help mankind flourish, but there is a grey area when you get in contradictory situations like this. Too bad quantum physics couldn't apply itself here and have a satisfying ending for both the librarian and everyone else. - Alphateam, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33@Hawk
Umm...that means nothing to me. So laws should be broke because it feels good? Or it is my kid? No. So I can go rob a bank because my kid needs money for a new kidney. No. IT IS A LAW! - phlll, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29It's possible the kid made everything up. Remember the Salem Witch Trials?
- modernman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21Very cool that you listed the contact info. When writing to government officials keep in mind:
1) Be respectful, otherwise your letter will end up in the "crank file" and be ignored.
2) Snail mail is taken more seriously then email. - jgreene777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21you are an idiot. the librarian has an obligation to uphold the constitution, as does EVERY american citizen.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19vvaduva, congratulations on being the first idiot to invoke "Won't someone think of the children?!"
- tehgooch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Of course you don't applaud until you're wrongly accused and sentenced because they dug up some dirt on you.
- cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+22No offense to the other two police officers, but most cops in the US are total sociopaths that just need power over other people. There is this rookie cop in my town, he often yells at me for just walking around downtown, the very first time I met him I was extremely friendly and walked up to him and said hi and asked him how he was doing, he tried to act like the fact that I was being friendly was because I was on drugs, after about 5 minutes of him figuring out I wasn't all "hepped up on goofballs" he continued to grill me about why I was there and made sure I had nowhere else to be, then he left and told me to leave as soon as possible. Not an isolated incident, and it's not just him, have you ever met a friendly and understanding policeman? I'm sure you have, if you're over 40 and have a good enough memory.
- sbrown123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17"It doesn't matter who funds the government."
So are you saying we should just stop paying our taxes since we don't matter?
"Neither can you make policies in the library itslef."
No, we elect (hire) people who we think will properly handle the resources we give them. I am too busy to be handling library policies. And if these employees do a bad job they should expect to get fired.
"If its paid for by the government its no longer private property"
So, by your odd logic, if I own a gun I can just go shoot people randomly? Oh, wait, there are laws that prevent this? Same goes for the government: they are not above the law and breaking the law should not be allowed.
You should never forget that our government serves us, not the other way around. If they start screwing up like these cops are it's probably time to whip out the Donald Trump and tell them "you're fired". And if they don't like it, see how long they last without your tax dollars. - JimV, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20Maybe people should read the article, because the word "Constitution" and "Amendment" appear nowhere in the article. This wasn't a consitutional issue.
"Reutty said she refused to give the information to police without a subpoena -- in accordance with New Jersey state statutes governing access of private information from libraries, she said."
It was a state statute that was in question, not the constitutionality. (I'm not saying whether it would have been constitutional or not, but it's not mentioned in the article.) This lady was upholding a state law, not the Constitution. - scottc, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21"refusing to cooperate with a police investigation is not 'upholding the constitution'"
If the police ask you to do something that violates the constitution, then yes, it is. That is true reqardless of whether you agree with her actions or not. - borchard76, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I know a few, but they are rare.
The fact is that it is a tough job that is severely underpaid. It is neither blue collar nor white collar. It is something else--sometimes it requires oodles of paperwork, a task for which some are suited, but other times it requires calm handling of stressful and sometimes dangerous situations. It requires a high degree of physical fitness (something that is often let go after hiring). Unfortunately it is legally tricky to screen for sociopathic behaviors. Psychometrically it is almost as bad, if not even worse.
I think, like many other positions, that the police officer is a job that is best performed by those who don't particularly want it. Instead it is best performed by those who just want to help uphold the law and (more importantly, IMHO) protect the innocent. Note that I did NOT say "punish the guilty". That is VERY different from protecting the innocent. The innocent should be able to call for help and receive it without question, and quickly. The guilty should be punished. Laws should be designed with the intent to protect all citizens, and allow for punishment of those who endanger or harm others, with more grevious harm resulting in more grevious punishment.
In this case, it appears that she did not 'stonewall' the police or even place the library first. Instead she followed the law, which requires that the police have a subpeona in order to access private information. Library records, right or wrong, are (I think) considered private information. Additionally, once she was shown the subpeona she acted in full cooperation with the police, which is appropriate. I would think, given her position and experience, that she knows the proper procedures and regulations. I'll ask my librarian friends what they know. - thewebguy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17i'm surprised these ignorant cops didn't arrest her. i emailed her yesterday (i think this was on /. or something) to congratulate her.
- VincentIII, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21Hmmm, my great aunt lives in that town and ill be visiting her this summer. I guess I got two other areas I can visit now in town...
- UnixSkunk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16A response to vvaduva and b0nj0m0n...
Some people need to stop drinking the cool-aid.
New Jersey law regarding the release of Library records.
Library records which contain the names or other personally identifying details regarding the users of libraries are confidential and shall not be disclosed except in the following circumstances:
a. The records are necessary for the proper operation of the library;
b. Disclosure is requested by the user; or
c. Disclosure is required pursuant to a subpoena [sic -- probably transcription error in the database] issued by a court or court order.
L. 1985, c. 172, s. 2, eff. May 31, 1985.
I am NOT beholden to you to protect you from anything. At this point, all you have is a 12 year old girl's word that some random person in front of a library sexually harassed her. You don't even know HOW she was sexually harassed. The girl was NOT, in fact, raped. And if in fact, at this point, she was worried about, or there was a possibility OF her being abused, she could simply have stayed near her parents for protection until the suspect was investigated.
What if the police officer was, in fact, a sex offender researching information on a victim he planned to rape/attack, etc. Would you want him to be able to walk in, and simply request the information on where your daughter lives so he could attack your child while you weren't away? Or when you dropped her off at the library? We have rules like these because we believe JUDGES are the proper people to decide if a request for information is valid. It is important that more than one person know about a request for this kind of information so that IF it is provided, people will know who requested it, when it is abused. What if this book was borrowed every week on a Wednesday by a young girl...Information which could be learned by looking at the borrower's records? If a police officer who had unpleasant plans for this information could just request it...And nobody KNEW about this...What would happen then?
All I can say is that Police are rapidly ceasing to hold a place as public heroes because of things like this. I'd rather go to Fireman for help...They are volunteers...And they risk their lives for people daily. My new heroes are turning out to be Soldiers, Librarians/Teachers, and Firemen.
I wish this librarian all the best and thank her for protecting my privacy in a world where the government is rapidly taking away more of our rights and privacy... - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20It is a very fine balance. It's interesting to note that the 4th Amendment is one of the fundamental reasons why I can reasonably assume that the police involved in this case were likely good, honest cops who felt legitimately annoyed that someone was slowing them from hunting down a child predator. Relaxing the rules may be expedient for the current generation of police, who were trained not to perform unreasonable searches and seizures, but it would be very bad in the long term when police who were not trained to understand legal restraints come into power. Protections like the 4th Amendment do a lot to prevent the next generation of police from becoming corrupt or too powerful.
In this case I can praise both the police for being such ardent hunters and the librarian for standing up for civil rights. The constant tension between expedience and proper legal procedure is what keeps the system honest. - jabberwonk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16The police should be thanking her. If she had just turned over the information, and if there was a criminal trial, I would assume that a half decent defense attorney would question the lack of subpeona. If that were ruled inadmissable, it might jeopardize the case.
I'd be curious if the police were actually complaining, or if the "borough officials" cited were speaking on their own and not on behalf of the police department. - AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15you show them Libarian lady,
what jurks. Lazy so and so's , makes me so mad. - conigs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@Hawk
Others have said this, I'm just repeating it because I'm taking "the 5 minutes to comment."
Suppose the librarian just handed over the records. The lawyer for the defendant could argue that the records were not obtained legally and have them thrown out. The case then becomes more difficult for the prosecutor, and the defendant might just go free. By following the laws in place, the librarian just might have saved this case.
Now, onto other things. If we start going around those pesky problems like due process, we start heading down a slippery slope. You might be okay with it now, but suppose down the road people become in charge who don't agree with you. Now those people bypass laws to obtain information to be used against you. Now how would you feel? "Oh, we see you have taken a library book out on (insert subject of chemistry/revolution/anarchy/etc, etc, etc). You are deemed a threat to this society. We'll be in touch."
Far-fetched? Possibly. But not entirely. - thavok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@b0nj0m0n
Not sure if you read the article or not but when time is critical to find this "man" they police waited until the next day after it was reported to talk to the librarian I'm sorry but your response is ill founded the cops are lazy. - ryno35, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14"Borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police."
This is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. As if acting on behalf of her employer first was somehow wrong. We are not here to bow to every whim of law enforcement Mrs Horn. The law is the law. - dgulbran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14The bigger problem, as the librarian pointed out in the article, which seems to be ignored by the police, is that if she *had* given them the records without a subpoena, and they had arrested that creep, the evidence might not have been admissible in court because it was illegally obtained!
The police are being *really* stupid here... she wasn't impeding them--she was actually helping them by *following the law*. By following New Jersey law and the Constitution, she ensured that the evidence was obtained legally, so it could be used properly against the alleged perv.
The Chief of Police should be kissing her ass for saving his department from the embarrassment of letting a potential child molester off the hook because of sloppy police work. - foxmuldr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16This woman is a true patriot. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". If we turn away from our rights because the government asks us to, then how are we possibly, in any way, shape or form, upholding anything that the rights guaranteed to us by our U.S. Constitutional Republic guarantee? As soon as we voluntarily give up anything, that document, and the principles it's founded upon, mean nothing -- especially in this climate of increased governmental intrusion into the area of our civil liberties. If ever there was a time to stand up in this counry and protect your rights and freedoms, it is now. People in this country need to wake up to what's happening here. There is a whole history of this country that is being lost by design. - Rick C. Hodgin
- xopt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13
If you are reluctant to send an email you can use the library's feedback page to send a supportive message:
http://www.bccls.org/feedback.shtml
Step up and start the weekend right! - fak3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13So, the problem occurs when citizens uphold the law, because in doing so it slows down law enforcement that aren't? Subpoenas exist for a reason, she should be commended, not disciplined.
- TalenGTP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh
No seriously. If those records were given up without the proper subpoenas, the defense would have argued that they were obtained illegally and the evidence would be admissible. Damn lawyers - silent1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12You, sir, are an idiot. If the police are not upholding the law by sidestepping due process, they are acting ILLEGALLY. Just because they're police doesn't mean they're above the law and you always have to cooperate with everything they say / demand. It's up to each and every citizen to defend our guaranteed, *inalienable* rights because blind faith in government agencies is the antithesis of the very spirit of our constitution. Take a Civics class and learn something.
- jasqwerty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15The title is idiotic because she hasn't been 'disciplined' in any way yet, save for some public exposure, not because you'll give up all your rights because a kid is involved. You can't be put in jail for obstruction of justice because you refused to do something illegal, like blindly releasing protected records without a subpoena. You're open to cooperate with the police all you want, but there's no law that you have to, and I'm happy there isn't.
- crad14, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14"all citizens have a moral and civic duty to protect victims, especially children."
If everyone went around randomly deciding which laws to follow and which laws to break it would be complete chaos because everyone would have different ideas about what is right. The police are supposed to enforce the law, not enforce it as long as it doesn't give them a little extra paper work and then throw a temper tantrum when they don't get their way. - r00t3d0ut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11It's amazing how much society has changed since "9/11". People just don't view the Constitution or privacy rights the same way, if at all. We would rather just stick our head in the sand and allow for the illusion of safety to creep into the fabric of our society. No one cares anymore that every aspect of our lives are open to prying eyes to save us from a faceless enemy, no matter who or what that is. Imagine our society as a lobster being thrown into boiling water; the lobster would try to escape as fast as it can. But now imagine the same lobster put into cold water and having the temperature raised until it's cooked to death. Same happens with society.
- TriSight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@Hawk
I have plenty at stake. I have 3 children of my own, and they are as precious to me as anything in the world. It's because of this that even more so this furiates me because it means that they will eventually live in a world where their children, my grandchildren, will be forced to live in a draconian police state in which the government will do whatever they please because of people such as yourself that vote away the rights and liberties of this country because you believe that these procedures actually help your children.
My children are just that, children. I am their protector and I am their watcher, not the government. - cptspanky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10the headline is a little stupid sounding....but you can't hold the librarian at fault for asking for a subpoena. Asking for a subpoena is a perfectly legitimate request at ANY time the police ask for information, and they ended up getting the info they needed and finding out the guys name anyway, so I don't see what all the hubbub's about.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 286 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is