Terrorisim & Warrents

[telkanuru]

Here's a story from my hometown.

http://www.townonline.com/newton/loc...73&format=text

Written out,

Originally Posted by Newton TAB

City demands warrant in FBI investigation
By Dan Atkinson/ Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Law enforcement and Newton Free Library officials were embroiled in a tense standoff for nearly 10 hours last week when the city refused to let police and the FBI examine library computers without a warrant.
Police rushed to the main library last Wednesday after it was determined that a terrorist threat to Brandeis University had been sent from a computer at the library.
But requests to examine any of its computers were rebuffed by library Director Kathy Glick-Weil and Mayor David Cohen on the grounds that they did not have a warrant.
While one law enforcement official said he was "totally disgusted" with the city’s attempt to hold up a time-sensitive investigation of potential terrorist threat, Cohen is defending the library’s actions, calling it one of Newton’s "finest hours."
"We showed you can enforce the law ... without jeopardizing the privacy of innocent citizens," Cohen said.
Brandeis received the alleged e-mail threat at about 11 a.m. on Jan. 18, according to Waltham Lt. Brian Navin. While police reportedly didn’t find anything threatening after evacuating 12 buildings at Brandeis and a nearby elementary school, by about 2 p.m., the e-mail was traced to a computer at the Newton Free Library on Homer Street.
Newton Police, followed shortly by FBI and State Police officers, rushed to the library to lock the building down, Glick-Weil said.
"There was a lot of excitement going on," she said.
Police traced the origin of the e-mail to one of the 21 computers in the second-floor lab, Glick-Weil said. She agreed to have her information technology worker examine the computers, but said the FBI requested for information about the computers without a warrant, even though they were familiar with library privacy laws.
"You’ll have to ask them why they did that," she said.
An FBI spokesman, as well as Lt. Bruce Apotheker of the Newton Police, both said their offices would not comment on the investigation.
Cohen was asked by FBI officials to turn over information on all the computers, but said he could not without a warrant. It took U.S. attorneys several hours to finally get a warrant, Glick-Weil said, and they took the computer from the library at about 11:30 that night, after the library had closed.
But a law enforcement official who was close to the investigation but said he was not authorized to speak on the record, described the incident in an e-mail as a "nightmare."
He said Glick-Weil was told "we were dealing with a potential terrorism plot" but became "close to uncontrollable, saying that we had no right to be there."
Nancy Murray, director of education for the Boston branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she was surprised the FBI asked for information without a warrant.
"They couldn’t possibly expect to get [the computer] without a warrant," she said. "Good for the library for knowing more about warrants than the police."
"The law requires us to protect the privacy of library users," Glick-Weil said.
Glick-Weil said there was a "little bit of tension" during the investigation, but overall thought it went smoothly.
"I found the process encouraging," she said. "If law enforcement thinks it has probable cause, it can get a warrant in a timely fashion."
Dan Atkinson can be contacted at datkinso@cnc.com.

I agree with the mayor and Glick-Weil. What do you think, and why?

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I agree with the mayor and Glick-Weil. What do you think, and why?

Me too, what were the Police thinking? - they should know the law and not expect to be able to ignore it in order to cover up their own lack of forsight.
Good on the University. I gues it was probably a prank anyway.

[Philistine]

You can always ask for information without a warrant. In most cases, the police or FBI wouldn't get a warrant for information which they expected to be volunteered by either a victim or a neutral third party (assuming their are no laws preventing the third party from volunteering the information).

I don't fault them for asking for the information. I'm not sure what I think of the library's refusal--to me, it depends on the nature of the actual threat, and the local laws relating to privacy rights (neither of which I'm familiar with).

Of course--the upshot is that requiring a search warrant probably means the computer will be out of service longer....

--Philistine

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by article

one law enforcement official said he was "totally disgusted" with the city’s attempt to hold up a time-sensitive investigation of potential terrorist threat

It's this that I find objectionable.

[Epee_Pox]

If the cops truly thought there was an imminent life-or-death threat, then the "exigent circumstances" group of exceptions to the warrant requirement would have justified them ignoring the protestations of the library staff -- knocking in the doors with battering rams if need be -- and getting the crucial "time-sensitive" evidence forthwith.

The fact that law enforcement did NOT do this when faced with resistance implies to me that they either did not believe it really was a life-or-death situation, or that they weren't really in such a hurry.


That said, I can totally empathize with the official who was disgusted with the library's petty stand. When you approach a citizen and say something like "a bomb threat was just sent from one of your computers," you tend to expect a reaction like "oh my God, come in, they're over there!" The reaction "get out, go back to your office and type up a search warrant, then go find a judge and get it signed, then come back here, you rights-invading scum," on the other hand, shows a complete lack of perspective, pettiness and unconcern with the safety of one's fellows. A cop whose job is to protect those fellows' lives and safety is going to have a hard time understanding such a reaction -- as will most people, I'd hazard.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

Me too, what were the Police thinking? - they should know the law and not expect to be able to ignore it in order to cover up their own lack of forsight.
Good on the University. I gues it was probably a prank anyway.

They were probably thinking, hmm....there is potential for many people to be hurt or killed here. We know where the message originated from. If we could see more we might be able to find the source before they have a chance to get very far.

What if it wasnt a prank and people were killed? The same people cheering now would be screaming to have the culprits apprehended.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

It's this that I find objectionable.

Would you be singing the same tune if it wasnt a prank, and some of your friends and family were killed? I think not.

As you probably know, that university has a large majority of Jewish students and faculity. Dont you think given what is going on in the world a little slack should be given to those charged with protecting the public?

[Slim]

Originally Posted by Philistine

You can always ask for information without a warrant. In most cases, the police or FBI wouldn't get a warrant for information which they expected to be volunteered by either a victim or a neutral third party (assuming their are no laws preventing the third party from volunteering the information).

I don't fault them for asking for the information. I'm not sure what I think of the library's refusal--to me, it depends on the nature of the actual threat, and the local laws relating to privacy rights (neither of which I'm familiar with).

Of course--the upshot is that requiring a search warrant probably means the computer will be out of service longer....

--Philistine

You feel the librarians are more qualified to evaluate the nature of the threat better than law enforcement?

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Slim

You feel the librarians are more qualified to evaluate the nature of the threat better than law enforcement?

No, but they're apparenly more qualified to evaluate the nature of the law better than law enforcement.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Slim

You feel the librarians are more qualified to evaluate the nature of the threat better than law enforcement?

No.

My point was that my feeling towards the library's actions would be different if, for example, what they were told was--"someone sent an e-mail bomb threat to Brandeis, nothing was found, but we want to see if we can trace who did it" versus "There was an e-mail threat sent from here, and we need this information immediately because we have reason to believe there's a bomb that will kill people if you don't tell us immediately."

Generally--if there is no law which prevents an entity from giving up information without a warrant (banks and other financial institutions, for example), I don't think putting the police through getting a warrant when they're obviously going to get one is all that praiseworthy.

Not sure whether there are such laws with regard to libraries and their computers and logs, but libraries generally have a pretty strong informal policy of not voluntarily giving patron information.

Again--I don't think the police were wrong, in any way to ask, or to be frustrated with the library's response--though they probably shouldn't be surprised about it.

--Philistine

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Slim

You feel the librarians are more qualified to evaluate the nature of the threat better than law enforcement?

Did you not read Epee Pox's comment about exigent circumstance? Don't you ever watch Law and Order?

The FBI oviously felt they could wait for a warrant, they just didn't want to.

That said, it's obvious a warrant would be coming, and it's obvious the computer would be turned over to the authorities, so really requiring the warrant was just an exercise in due process. Something that is under fire in this day and age.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by achilleus

Did you not read Epee Pox's comment about exigent circumstance? Don't you ever watch Law and Order?

The FBI oviously felt they could wait for a warrant, they just didn't want to.

That said, it's obvious a warrant would be coming, and it's obvious the computer would be turned over to the authorities, so really requiring the warrant was just an exercise in due process. Something that is under fire in this day and age.

Sorry, more of a "24" kinda guy if you couldnt already tell.

[telkanuru]

Originally Posted by Slim

Would you be singing the same tune if it wasnt a prank, and some of your friends and family were killed? I think not.

As you probably know, that university has a large majority of Jewish students and faculity. Dont you think given what is going on in the world a little slack should be given to those charged with protecting the public?

Well, whenever a law-enforcement officer finds due process objectionable, you can be pretty sure I have a problem with their thought process.

I somehow doubt that the public computer it was sent from would aid in determining where a theoretical bomb is and/or save lives, btw.

And no, the entire point of a justice system is that it is followed no matter what the circumstances are.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Slim

Sorry, more of a "24" kinda guy if you couldnt already tell.

Ah, that explains a lot!


Actually, I've never watched '24' so it means very little to me.

[esskreemr]

Let's say that three guys decide that they can make alot of money by gathering credit card numbers from a local business.

They dress up in the stereotypical FBI gear complete with real looking badges and id. They go out of state to a business they know fulfills internet orders from a storefront and warehouse. The business only has 1 employee in the main office. The men enter and inform Molly, the store manager, that they are confiscating financial transactions under the Patriot Act's sneak and peek regs. Subsequentally, they are implementing a gag order and she cannot notify anyone, including her customers or other law enforcement agents that the information has been gathered. She will recieve the notification once the proper 'delayed' warrant has been issued, which could be a period of several months due to an ongoing investigation.

Would she be breaking the law by not informing her customers and/or law enforcement agents? Should she be held responsible for the damages by the fake cops?

Would this make a good movie plot if it involved terrorists.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I somehow doubt that the public computer it was sent from would aid in determining where a theoretical bomb is and/or save lives, btw.

Ah, so YOU are more qualified than both the librarian and the law enforcement official to evalute the situation and the potential clues someone may have left behind.

[Epee_Pox]

Originally Posted by telkanuru

I somehow doubt that the public computer it was sent from would aid in determining where a theoretical bomb is and/or save lives, btw.

Apart from identifying who sent the message, you mean? I have heard that, on occasion, a perp in custody may sometimes tell you where the weapon/body/whatever is, what their scheme is, or what have you. Hard to speak to someone, however, if you don't know who they are.

And of course they may have sent other messages containing clues to what they're up to. They may even have sent them from that computer. Those kinds of details are, from time to time, of interest to law enforcement.

[RebelFencer]

I agree that in this case, making the stand may seem petty..but with the patriot act and the wire tapping going on, a stand had to be made somewhere. The library showed that it was perfectly able to comply with the law the second the police officers and FBI did.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by RebelFencer

I agree that in this case, making the stand may seem petty..but with the patriot act and the wire tapping going on, a stand had to be made somewhere.

Why?

It's not necessarily as self-evident as you seem to think.

But I would not be all that surprised if a librarian---or a forum member---DID indeed know the law better than a given LE agent. The state of knowledge of the law among police officers is enormously variable, and tends to be great when it involves things done every day and sometimes close to nonexistant when it involves rarely encountered sorts of infractions. For instance, I know officers who've memorized just about the entirety of my state's traffic codes verbatim, backward and forward. I am not sure they'd even know what "embezzlement" is, meanwhile. Because they do lots of traffic stops, and no white-collar-crime investigations. One knows best what one practices most.

Of course, one might expect them to know search and seizure protocols, especially FBI agents...

In the end I agree that legitimate procedures must be followed. As a couple of people have mentioned, if there is a legitimate exception involved, the law usually makes a procedure available there, too.