can get back to running dog fights in his office.
Posted on 08/03/2007 9:01:14 AM PDT by CharlesS
For the first time in the history of our Country, Federal agents raided a Congressional Office on May 20, 2006. The office belonged to Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA), and was conducted with a legal search warrant obtained after witness interviews and wire taps gave authorities reason to believe Rep. Jefferson had, or was going to bribe a foreign official. Nine months earlier, a similar raid on Jefferson’s home produced $90,000 in cash in his freezer.
Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker’s documents.
“The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the search itself was constitutional but that FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents involved legislative business.”
This ruling had to do with what is known as the Speech or Debate clause of the Constitution, Article I section 6 which states members of Congress “shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.”
For starters, this clause only prevents the arrest of Congressman while in attendance, or travelling to and from Congress. (Incidentally this clause is used by Congressman to avoid ever paying a speeding ticket). This clause however makes no mention of conducting a legal search of Congressional offices. It is also important to note the clause holds an exception for treason, felony and breach of peace, therefore a search of his office to garner evidence in a felony case should be exempt from this protection.
The leading Supreme Court case on the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause is United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 (1972), In Brewster, the Court stated, “[A] Member of Congress may be prosecuted under a criminal statute provided that the Government’s case does not rely on legislative acts or the motivation for legislative acts. A legislative act has consistently been defined as an act generally done in Congress in relation to the business before it. In sum, the Speech or Debate Clause prohibits inquiry only into those things generally said or done in the House or the Senate in the performance of official duties and into the motivation for those acts.”
The Court of Appeals decision is an unfortunate one, because it now allows Jefferson the opportunity to have any documents obtained from his office ruled inadmissable at his criminal trial.
So basically our public seeervants are above the law.
Judge and appointed by whom?
'Nuff said.
$10 says Jefferson walks.
No takers. Now I want to hear from the extremel vocal NAACP on this one.
Wow, I guess I shouldn't go by the headlines on the Yahoo News site. I certainly got the impression that the search was wrong, meaning this case would be going away.
This will be overturned by the full panel.
LLS
Actually, the opinion was written by Judge Roberts, a conservative federalist. Not all the documents were said to have been illegally seized—only those relating to legislative matters—and then under the Speech and Debate clause of the Constitution.
As the seizure was handled by FBI agents forbidden to disclose the contents to anyone, it should not affect the criminal case which didn’t rely on ANY documents seized from Jefferson’s office.
So the Raid itself WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, yet Jefferson should have been afforded the right to say certain documents were of legislative business and not personal. SCOTUS will overturn. You can not trust a criminal lawmaker to say what can be looked at and what can’t. That is what the appeals court is saying. If the raid was unconstitutional, which it was, SCOTUS will overturn.
www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-raid-on-congress,1,7302597.story
chicagotribune.com
Court: FBI Violated Constitution in Raid
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer
10:48 AM CDT, August 3, 2007
WASHINGTON
The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson’s office last year and viewed legislative documents in a corruption investigation, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The court ordered the Justice Department to return any legislative documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat’s office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid and did not say whether prosecutors could use any of the records against Jefferson in their bribery case.
Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker’s documents. ......
And if BOR wants to see restraint with bells on radiating from the posters here, he should probably follow this thread. This one really asks for it.
no, that is not what the court said.
It said the FBI does not have the power to take EVERYTHING. (no shoot them all and let god sort them out mentality)
The ruling says the legislator has to be able to identify legislative busness documents which would be unrelated to the criminal investigation.
(ie some constituent with a military pension problem, a letter telling him to vote in support of some bill, negotiations with fellow legislators, etc.)
The FBI is famously incompetent so the fact they used a shotgun approach which would be reversed on appeal is no surprise. The FBI gets away with it because most defendants do not have deep pockets.
can get back to running dog fights in his office.
Sounds to me like the Congress has found its loophole to prevent any further attempts to make them accountable to the laws they pass for the rest of us.
All they have to do is scream that they have pending legislation on their desks and the legislative branch can see it before it’s law!!
More political elitism.
From the article currently linked at Drudge:
The case was considered by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson and Judge Judith W. Rogers.
Ginsburg and Rogers served in the Justice Department and Henderson served as deputy South Carolina attorney general. None of the judges served in the legislative branch, though Rogers was counsel to a congressional commission formed to review Washington’s municipal structure. Ginsburg and Henderson were appointed by Republican presidents, Rogers by a Democrat.
This should have very little impact on the overall case against Jefferson. Provided this applies only to “legislative acts” and within the context of US v. Brewster, I’m inclined to agree.
The prosecutors will now try to “cure” the deficiency by allowing an opportunity to dispute documents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.