[Red Badger]

So, the State was arguing that dead fish are ‘documents’?.............

[EDINVA]

“So, the State was arguing that dead fish are ‘documents’?.............”

Embarrassing, isn’t it? And frightening how they can interpret “is.”

[OneWingedShark]

Why not?
Makes about as much sense as anything in the legal arena.

[Political Junkie Too]

the State was arguing that dead fish are ‘documents’?

"I'm not dead yet!"

-PJ

[Benito Cereno]

No, the act didn’t just prohibit the shredding of documents. It prohibited destruction of “tangible objects,” which certainly does apply to a fish. It’s not the Court’s fault, it is (once again) Congress’s fault for sloppy draftsmanship.

[Lurking Libertarian]

So, the State was arguing that dead fish are ‘documents’?.............

The statute says it is a crime to destroy any "record, document or tangible object" with intent to obstruct an investigation. The four dissenters (who included Scalia and Thomas) said that a fish is a tangible object and that statutes should be read literally. The majority relied on the intent of Congress, which was to reach destruction of documents, computer hard drives and the like.