Friday, October 30, 2009

Library Obstructs Child Porn Investigation by State Police in Montrose, NY; Claims Stonewalling is Not Stonewalling

Another library is supporting child pornography by thwarting police. But first:
Now it is Montrose, NY's turn to have its library promote child porn by stonewalling the police and the local community's interests in finding the criminal. This is evident in this very sad story about yet another community in the ALA/ACLU-led stranglehold.

Let me point out that often the libraries are correct to ask for a search warrant, and often the police are prepared for that request and can comply relatively quickly. This matter is not that case, however. This, in my opinion, is the smoking gun of the library obstructing justice:

Specifically, police need the library board to provide a consent form to search the computer further and determine the specific images the man was viewing, Senior Investigator Brian Hoff said.

Police can obtain that information either through a consent form or by going to court for a warrant that would allow them to search the computer. However, Hoff said police don't have enough probable cause to get a warrant at this point.

He said police know the suspect's identity and still have custody of the computer but can't investigate further.
Here is the story of the library standing in the way of its own community:


"Cops: Library Stalls; Librarian Disagrees,"
by Terence Corcoran,
The Journal News,
30 October 2009

MONTROSE - State police say they have pulled the plug on an investigation into the possible viewing of child pornography by a patron of Hendrick Hudson Free Library because the library board refuses to cooperate with them.

The library director, however, said board members are reviewing the matter, have not made a decision - and insisted that the board is not stonewalling police.

"The board is definitely not not cooperating," director M. Jill Davis said Thursday. "We're looking for some additional information to evaluate the situation and then make a decision."

Davis said the board initially conferred with an attorney recommended by Westchester Library System but that it does not have its own lawyer. Messages left Thursday for the board president, Francis Fitzgerald, were not immediately returned.

In late September, investigators with the Cortlandt barracks seized a computer from the library after receiving a complaint from a librarian that a patron may have been using it to view illegal material.

Police said an "astute librarian" saw an older white male using the computer three times between July and September to view what was suspected to be child porn.

"An initial investigation supported the librarian's claims that the computer was used to view child pornography," Investigator Sean Morgan wrote in an e-mail. "Also, alarmingly, this was occurring within just a few feet of the children's section of the library."

Morgan said the library board, through its attorney, has refused to cooperate further, citing the suspect's privacy rights.

"As such, the matter is being closed at this time," he said.

Specifically, police need the library board to provide a consent form to search the computer further and determine the specific images the man was viewing, Senior Investigator Brian Hoff said.

Police can obtain that information either through a consent form or by going to court for a warrant that would allow them to search the computer. However, Hoff said police don't have enough probable cause to get a warrant at this point.

He said police know the suspect's identity and still have custody of the computer but can't investigate further.

"Our hands are tied," Hoff said. But Davis said the library board is seeking more information on what exactly it would be consenting to before agreeing to anything.

Cortlandt resident Lindsey Scott, who often takes her 2-year-old daughter to the library, said she was surprised to hear that someone was accused of viewing child pornography on a library computer.

"It's shocking," she said.

Scott, 27, said that if what police say is true, library board members should cooperate with the investigation.

"They should be more worried about keeping everyone safe than someone's rights," she said. "It should be investigated. There are kids all over this library."

Angel Reyes, 19, of Montrose agreed that the library board should cooperate with police if it isn't already doing so.

"They should let the police do their work," he said Thursday night while heading into the library.

Last year, a 54-year-old Southeast man was sentenced to 10 years' probation in Putnam County Court after Carmel police found him downloading child pornography at Mahopac Public Library. Librarians had seen the man viewing child porn and notified police, who waited for him to return to the library. Thomas Farmer was also barred from entering the Mahopac library for eight years and required to register as a sex offender.

In Tulare County, Calif., a librarian at the Lindsay Branch Library was discharged by her supervisor last year after she called authorities about a man who apparently was viewing child pornography on a library computer. The man was arrested, and the fired librarian sued to get her job back.

Linda Berns, director of the Lower Hudson Valley chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, noted Thursday that libraries had been heavily involved in making modifications to the USA Patriot Act - set to be renewed in December - and other efforts by the government to obtain information about people who use library materials and services after Sept. 11.

"There is some expectation of privacy in a library," she said. "Librarians have a very strong code of privacy and individual rights."

As to the police investigation, Berns said it seemed reasonable for investigators to obtain a court warrant before searching a library computer.

Viewing child pornography is considered possession, whether a person looks at it on a computer or downloads the images, the Westchester County District Attorney's Office said. It's a felony, punishable by up to four years in state prison.

.

3 comments:

  1. So why blame the library, the ALA, ACLU or whoever else you're unfairly heaping the blame on? If the police have enough evidence to convince a judge, they can easily obtain a search warrant. This is not hard to do: it doesn't take a lot of evidence, just a reasonable statement of probability.

    Of course the library should resist divulging private information to anyone, including law enforcement. The proper procedure is through court order (of which a search warrant is a special case).

    The most disturbing statement in the article you quoted was one patron saying "They should be more worried about keeping everyone safe than someone's rights." Such a statement can only be made by someone with little or no understanding of how our criminal legal system works.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Public libraries and police are both funded by and created to serve the public, said Dan Kleinman of Safelibraries.org.

    "In this case all they need to [do] is give the police permission to look at the computer they already have in their possession," Kleinman said. "This isn't invading anyone's privacy. They are all on the same team. Libraries are formed by charter to serve a particular purpose. Child pornography is not usually one of these purposes."

    The above is a direct quote from "Hen Hud: Court Order May be Required," by Barbara Livingston Nackman, The Journal News, 31 October 2009.

    And you know what? I just learned from this article that A SUBPOENA WAS ALREADY OBTAINED FPR THE COMPUTER!! SO WHAT'S THE DELAY?? WHY THE NEED FOR A SECOND SUBPOENA??

    Oh, notice how the ALA says, "I understand they would like to facilitate the investigation, but the library is bound." That's a polite way of saying the ALA opposes the local community's interests as expressed in this and the previous article. Now what were you saying, Non-Censor, about unfairly heaping blame on the ALA? And thanks for commenting.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The article you cite explains things quite clearly. The library in question is bound by STATE LAW not to release the private information. The refusal to release the information, then, has nothing to do with the policy of the individual library nor with your imaginary ALA monster.

    The article indicates that the state police "say they don't have enough probable cause to get a warrant at this point." That's mighty peculiar, considering they've got what info they can out of the computer used in the alleged crime.

    If they've gotten what they can out of the computer and still can't convince a judge to issue a search warrant or subpoena for the patron's records from the library, there's something else wrong with the evidence available for prosecution.

    Your claim that "they are all on the same team" has a nice emotional appeal, but the fact is that many branches of government are prohibited by various laws from sharing private information with each other. We don't live an a police state, so every agency and department is NOT an extension of law enforcement.

    Ultimately, the prosecution of this case will not be helped if the police obtain evidence illegally. It is in the best interest of the library, the police, and the public to ensure that every aspect of the investigation complies fully with the applicable law. Otherwise, any halfway capable defense attorney will have the evidence suppressed at trial.

    And so I reiterate my previous statement: you're blaming the ALA for something they don't have anything to do with. They have no control over the situation at all, and are only explaining typical library policy. You're also portraying the individual library as being uncooperative with law enforcement, when they are, in fact, complying with applicable state law.

    ReplyDelete

Comments of a personal nature, trolling, and linkspam may be removed.