To serve, protect and follow the law

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,..."

How does this apply to a *public* library? If somenone left a pound of heroin by the computer in the library, does that mean the police could not use it as evidence against them, if they first did not get a warrant? What about on a streetcorner?

It also seems that the librarian would not have violated this if they had voluntarily turned it over, whether or not it applies in this case. Who knows if it would have saved the girl...

It's plain to see, that in the view of the editors of this paper, children have no value.

They should have just arrested her for obstuction of an investigation.(( the right of the PEOPLE )) A public library isn't a person and pharmacies are regulated so a inspection of their records is no different than inspecting a truck or restuarant without a warrent or probable cause.

They should have nailed the woman with a tazer and dragged her away and the town should fire her.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,

This right no longer exist. Read the patriots act.

patriots act wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects,
This right no longer exist. Read the patriots act.

Read the title first.

If you read the entire article you will realize she was acting on her own discretion; the ruling for library's didn't take effect until weeks after the police needed the information.

I understand their desire to protect the information of library patrons, however this is a 12 year old girls life here! If it was anything short of saving a persons life, I'd be right there with them, fighting to protect for privacy rights (which are implied by Constitution not granted), but they were simply callous in this instance. Coincidently, 4th amendment protects personal property. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects..." Usually privacy isn't implied or applied in public or on a public computer.

The AP article quotes Flint,'I told him "Show me the paper." ' And your cohorts are worse, "...frustrated police and had fellow librarians cheering Flint." They all let their egos get in the way of protecting a life. Who cares if she is 4 foot 10, she needs to get over her Napoleon complex and start caring about something more than her ego. Like I said, there is understanding in requesting a warrant for anything less than a life threatening situation and a not so time sensitive investigation.

You can argue the police should have come in with the warrant, but they jumped on a lead and I guess they figured you would have a heart for a child and your patrons would agree. Not having the benefit of hindsight at the time, this could of been case breaking information, and in the case of a missing child all information is crucial. The process to getting a warrant takes 8 hours as the article says, in the case of missing persons that is an extremely long time. The pharmacy example, I am right there with you.

No wonder the common perception in the 49 other States is that Vermont is full of left wing liberals who care about the rights of a criminal more than the overall safety of children.(Ala Judge granting weak sentences to child molesters.)

Sometimes as Citizens, we have to allow the spirit of the law to take precedence over the letter of the law and go back to our roots and realize children's lives are superior to a very strict (and stubborn) interpretation of the Constitution.

She is a villain in my book not a heroin.

Anyone else notice that this journalist gives the simple advice "Follow the law" but then in the very next example given the police DID follow the law and then the advice seems to change to "Follow the general protocol".

Basically, the seem to be espousing the idea that if the law matches their idea of what is right then follow it. If the law doesn't then don't enforce those.

Also, I'll add that I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that public computers are protected by the Fourth Amendment. Do the police need a warrant to search a public restroom? If the computers are protected then is the library itself protected? Should the police have had a warrant to even enter this public library? What if it's another public building? Like the courthouse?

The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches of their person, their residence, and their belongings. There's nothing there that protects public facilities from any search.

In reading the comments so far, all I can say is this:

"How eager you all are to become slaves."

Whether the state police are in the wrong or not, what I see above all else is a simple librarian standing in the way of the welfare of a little girl. Not in this particular case but those few hours waiting for those papers could easily mean life or death. When the state police need to follow any leads, they should have full cooperation with the public to try to find that missing person! I can't believe paper is more important than a life! Whose Rights are more important here? Someone that uses a public computer or an innocent little girl that was completely defenseless and would never get the chance to exercise HER Rights! Would you want to wait for papers if you were in danger or any sorts? I have no admiration for Judith Flint or any staff associated with Kimball Public Library for the interference on information to try to locate Brooke.

I understand the logic behind "follow the law". My only comment is- how would you have felt if that was your daughter or granddaughter and that library could hold the key to finding her safe and sound?

Jeanne wrote:

Whether the state police are in the wrong or not, what I see above all else is a simple librarian standing in the way of the welfare of a little girl. Not in this particular case but those few hours waiting for those papers could easily mean life or death. When the state police need to follow any leads, they should have full cooperation with the public to try to find that missing person! I can't believe paper is more important than a life! Whose Rights are more important here? Someone that uses a public computer or an innocent little girl that was completely defenseless and would never get the chance to exercise HER Rights! Would you want to wait for papers if you were in danger or any sorts? I have no admiration for Judith Flint or any staff associated with Kimball Public Library for the interference on information to try to locate Brooke.

using the same logic the cops should be allowed to do door to door house searches everytime somebody calls up and says their kid is missing. The kid might just be with a friend and a lack of communication caused the parent to freak out and call the cops because their kid was lost, but not really lost. just AWOL.

Personally if the cops showed up at my door and said they where looking for a neighborhood kid, I wouldn't think twice about letting them run threw my house so they could move on with their search and hopefully find the kid in good condition.

I sure don't think my veiw should be forced on other people. If they don't want a cop coming in their house without a warrent even if a kid is missing, that is up to them.

The situation with public property is totally different and was truly stupid to say get a warrent.

I agree that any search and seizure by the police needs to be either by consent, by arrest or by a court issued search warrant. Here’s where the “outraged public” needs to take its collective head out of the sand! The librarians, knowing that a 12-year-old girl or anyone for this matter, was in serious danger and missing refused to provide voluntary consent to allow the State Police to do their jobs and hopefully locate Brooke Bennett alive and well! Well Judith Flint may be the appointed “defender of justice” by the liberal public, but I would rather she be the defender of a 12-year-old girl! PLEASE take your heads out of the sand and wake up! This is not about the seizure of a drug lord’s cocaine stash that was hidden in his sofa; this is about the ability for the Kimball Public Library to assist with the investigation of an abducted 12-year-old girl! Well Ms Flint, I hope you’re happy; you delayed investigators with their investigation and may have caused an abducted girl pain, rape and subsequent death!
What part of this process did the VT State Police do wrong, I mean other then asking Ms Flint for her cooperation with locating an abducted 12-year-old girl. They did not seize the computers without permission and subsequently did produce a search warrant.
Ask yourself a VERY IMPORTANT question, if my daughter was abducted, would I assist the investigators with the investigation, or would I require them to get a search warrant to search my daughter’s room, collect evidence, get comparison DNA from myself and my wife, or even allow the investigators to look at/in the family computer to track where my daughter was taken from, taken to, or better yet help the State Police find my daughter and her abductor.
It is truly a very sad day when we care more about “the letter of the law” than about our children! Ms Fling is obviously someone who doesn’t care about children but is more concerned with delaying the inevitable and placing someone at risk!
Now that I’ve spoken my mind on that matter, please let me address the second part of the article.“While an obscure 1967 law gives state police the right to request and search through pharmacy databases….”
Well this sounds pretty clear and is “the letter of the law,” and the state police are acting within their scope of authority. The liberal left wing wants the State Police ridiculed and disciplined when they ask for voluntary consent to search for evidence but are also outraged when they follow the “letter of the law”! Gee this sounds like the argument used by spoiled children,“that’s not fair!”

Jacques St Charles wrote:

In reading the comments so far, all I can say is this:
"How eager you all are to become slaves."

Wake up! Freedom isn't free, someone must fight for it, someone must die for it, without the sacrifices of our soldiers (including the police) you would be a slave and not free to post your left wing liberal comments!

Very Concerned wrote:

<quoted text>
Wake up! Freedom isn't free, someone must fight for it, someone must die for it, without the sacrifices of our soldiers (including the police) you would be a slave and not free to post your left wing liberal comments!

Actually, I'm a Libertarian. And that quote came from the Emperor Tiberius, when the Senate clamored for him to assume dictatorship.

As for the sacrifice of our soldiers, if you mean the War in Iraq then yes, they have been sacrificed - not for freedom, but for the neocon's war lust.

As for you, Very Concerned... may your chains hang lightly upon your limbs.

I am in complete sympathy with this article. I too have had my Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights busted up in the name of protecting a kid who didn't even end up needing the "protecting." Without the Fourth Amendment, there would be no freedom for neither kids nor adults. We would be living in a Police State where we would constantly live in fear.

Fiona wrote:

I am in complete sympathy with this article. I too have had my Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights busted up in the name of protecting a kid who didn't even end up needing the "protecting." Without the Fourth Amendment, there would be no freedom for neither kids nor adults. We would be living in a Police State where we would constantly live in fear.

How does this apply to a *public* library?

Jacques St Charles wrote:

In reading the comments so far, all I can say is this:
"How eager you all are to become slaves."

Not sure how you feel that people believing that a public computer isnt (and shouldn't) be covered under the 4th ammendment is wrong or could cause us to be taken advantage of. I personally do strongly believe in the 4th ammendment, but the idea that police need a search warrant to check a public computer is crazy. This in my mind would be like the police needing a warrant to check history on a pay phone. But it does not surprise me that the local tabloid Brattleboro Misinformer would be against the police. Here they are parading for personal rights, but have no problem infringing on personal rights when they start calling people nonstop when there could be a story even when they have been told not to.

Vernonite wrote:

<quoted text>
Not sure how you feel that people believing that a public computer isnt (and shouldn't) be covered under the 4th ammendment is wrong or could cause us to be taken advantage of. I personally do strongly believe in the 4th ammendment, but the idea that police need a search warrant to check a public computer is crazy. This in my mind would be like the police needing a warrant to check history on a pay phone. But it does not surprise me that the local tabloid Brattleboro Misinformer would be against the police. Here they are parading for personal rights, but have no problem infringing on personal rights when they start calling people nonstop when there could be a story even when they have been told not to.

There is something called an electronic warrant. If the police or investigators think a search is necessary, and they have suspicion to believe any delay may cause loss of life or limb, or destruction of crucial evidence - all they do is send out en electronic request from their squad cars. 5 - 10 minutes later - they have their warrant.

Instead of arguing with the librarian, if the need was so great - they could have better used that time to have gotten the warrant in the first place.

Oh.. and as for those of you who wrote you would be more than willing to let the police search your home in these circumstances - you do realize that ANYTHING they find can be used against you. Related to the actual reason for the search or not.

It doesn't matter if you had no idea it may be illegal. With 50,000 new laws being passed every single year in the USA at all levels, you can bet your boots you break many laws each and every day without even knowing it.

Extend this to the library computer. You logged on and replied to some personal email because your home computer was down. In that email you mention "kiddie porn" - not that you had any - just that you thought people who did were sick. BINGO! You now have become a person of interest - a potential child molester.

Or you write that some high government figure is a moron who should be tarred and feathered. BINGO! You are now guilty of making terrorist threats against an elected official. Look for the local FBI to come a callin'.

Or you just play a couple rounds of Texas Hold 'Em
on an online service. BINGO! You've broken another law.

Catch my drift?

Jacques St Charles wrote:

<quoted text>
There is something called an electronic warrant. If the police or investigators think a search is necessary, and they have suspicion to believe any delay may cause loss of life or limb, or destruction of crucial evidence - all they do is send out en electronic request from their squad cars. 5 - 10 minutes later - they have their warrant.
Instead of arguing with the librarian, if the need was so great - they could have better used that time to have gotten the warrant in the first place.
Oh.. and as for those of you who wrote you would be more than willing to let the police search your home in these circumstances - you do realize that ANYTHING they find can be used against you. Related to the actual reason for the search or not.
It doesn't matter if you had no idea it may be illegal. With 50,000 new laws being passed every single year in the USA at all levels, you can bet your boots you break many laws each and every day without even knowing it.
Extend this to the library computer. You logged on and replied to some personal email because your home computer was down. In that email you mention "kiddie porn" - not that you had any - just that you thought people who did were sick. BINGO! You now have become a person of interest - a potential child molester.
Or you write that some high government figure is a moron who should be tarred and feathered. BINGO! You are now guilty of making terrorist threats against an elected official. Look for the local FBI to come a callin'.
Or you just play a couple rounds of Texas Hold 'Em
on an online service. BINGO! You've broken another law.
Catch my drift?

Take any of these examples and change the circumstances to the cop being off duty and seeing it over your shoulder while you were doing it.

It is still a public place. The 4th amendment does not apply. If you want to be protected by it, do these activities in your home, not in a public place!

The librarian in question did the right thing.It is part of her professional ethics and is expressed in the Library Bill of Rights whose antecedants are the U.S. Bill of Rights. This is a difficult issue but her institution's policy and Vermont law backs her up on this. The State Police must follow the correct procedure, or else everything they do would be suspect and thrown out in court. The fourth amendment applies in public libraries and is so stated in the 48 states that have confidentiality laws for libraries on the books.