An interesting story out of New Jersey.  Apparently, police approached a librarian for records related to a specific case.  They knew the title of a library book that was in the possession of a suspect.  The Library Director, Michele Reutty, in accordance with the law, requested that the police get a subpeona.  There was some confusion about the title, so the police requested the complete records of books borrowed over a certain period of time.  The librarian requested that the police get another subpeona to cover the new information.

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

And now, it looks like Reutty might be disciplined.

It seems that what this is really about is the perception (even among other library officials) that library records are not as important as, say, medical records or tax records, because I can't imagine a bureaucrat in those areas possibly being reprimanded for being, well, a bureaucrat.  I can't imagine police being at all surprised that those records are difficult to get, and might require a series of separate subpeonas. 

But I would like to go on record as saying that my library records should be very hard to get, and I expect libraries to protect those records as vigorously as the law requires.  As if "putting the library first" is a ridiculous thing for a librarian to do.