Standard Mischief

Sorry, I’m a bit of a stickler for paperwork. Where would we be if we didn’t follow the correct procedures? -Sam Lowry, from Brazil (1985)

A librarian is in administrative trouble for demanding that the police actually follow procedure and get (gasp!) a warrant before she released private information about a patron to the police.

From the North Jersey Media Group website:

Reutty says she was only doing her job and maintaining the privacy of library patrons. But the mayor called it “a blatant disregard for the Police Department,” which needed her help to identify a man who allegedly threatened a child.

Read that again, “a blatant disregard for the Police Department”. Looks like she’s in some hot water:

Reutty, the director for 17 years, now faces possible discipline by the library board. Members of the Borough Council have suggested she receive punishment ranging from a letter of reprimand in her personnel file to a 30-day unpaid suspension. But the Library Board of Trustees said it would reserve judgment until a closed-door hearing next month.

Police received a report May 10 that a 12-year-old borough girl was allegedly sexually threatened by a man outside the municipal building. The library is on the second floor. The girl told her parents, who called police.

…

The girl told police the man was carrying a library book with a certain title. The next day, borough police detectives asked Reutty to tell them who took out that book.

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.

So she was insisting that the police get a warrant before releasing personal data. She insisted that the police also follow the law. Shame on her for not licking the boots of the state.

Police came back with a subpoena later that day. Reutty conducted the search and told police she could not find a book with that title.

So, police asked her to show them all the records of everyone who took out or renewed a book for the previous 10 days. Reutty asked for another subpoena because those records are computerized and not kept at the library.

Here’s where we get a little borderline. There was likely a small mix-up, probably in the exact title of the book. Perhaps there was a choice made by Ms. Reutty to not be as flexible based on the pressure previously placed on her to break the law by the police. I might have felt the same way. Perhaps the curiously unnamed officer that pressured Michele Reutty needs to work on some people-skills. Regardless, she refused.

So, police asked her to show them all the records of everyone who took out or renewed a book for the previous 10 days. Reutty asked for another subpoena because those records are computerized and not kept at the library.

On May 12, Reutty said, she complied with the second subpoena — which required a special computer program by the Bergen County Cooperative Library System. Police found the information right away, which helped them to identify the suspect, according to Colaneri.

But borough officials say Reutty intentionally stonewalled the police investigation by putting the library first.

Err, or the Constitution, or patron’s privacy rights, or whatever.

They also charged that she did not follow procedure by contacting the borough’s attorney when she received the subpoena. Instead, she called a lawyer from the state library association.

Whoops, she got herself legal advice from the non-bootlicking lawyer.

The whole episode is “shocking,” Reutty said Wednesday. “I followed the law. And because I followed the law, at the end of the day, the policemen’s case is going to hold strong. Nobody is going to sue the library and nobody is going to sue the municipality of Hasbrouck Heights because information was given out illegally.”

The exclusionary rule, it’s there for a reason.

Thank you Michele Reutty.