Judge Rules Search of Jefferson's Office Constitutional
In a stinging defeat for William Jefferson and a resounding victory for the Executive Branch,
Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan ruled that the search warrant he signed for Representative William Jefferson's office is constitutional. Jefferson's lawyers signaled that they (a) weren't surprised and (b) planned on appealing the ruling. Here's the heart of the AP's article:
I'd also suggest that this was a relatively easy ruling if, in fact, Jefferson's attorneys didn't question the administration of the search warrant. If Jefferson's attorneys simply argued that the Executive Branch couldn't search the offices of the Legislative Branch, then they'd essentially be saying that the House office building was a sanctuary to congressmen wishing to hide evidence of wrong-doing. That's so convoluted that it's hard imagining a congressman or attorney thinking that way.
Posted Monday, July 10, 2006 4:23 PM
June 2006 Posts
No comments.
In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments that the first-ever raid on a congressman's office violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials. "Congress' capacity to function effectively is not threatened by permitting congressional offices to be searched pursuant to validly issued search warrants," said Hogan, who had approved the FBI's request to conduct the overnight search of Jefferson's office.Far be it from me to suggest that the AP's account is slanted, though characterizing the search of Jefferson's office as "the first-ever raid on a congressman's office" seems a bit melodramatic to me.
---------------
At issue was a constitutional provision known as the speech and debate clause, which protects elected officials from being questioned by the president, a prosecutor or a plaintiff in a lawsuit about their legislative work. "No one argues that the warrant executed upon Congressman Jefferson's office was not properly administered," Hogan wrote. "Therefore, there was no impermissible intrusion on the Legislature. The fact that some privileged material was incidentally captured by the search does not constitute an unlawful intrusion."
I'd also suggest that this was a relatively easy ruling if, in fact, Jefferson's attorneys didn't question the administration of the search warrant. If Jefferson's attorneys simply argued that the Executive Branch couldn't search the offices of the Legislative Branch, then they'd essentially be saying that the House office building was a sanctuary to congressmen wishing to hide evidence of wrong-doing. That's so convoluted that it's hard imagining a congressman or attorney thinking that way.
The raid on Jefferson's office angered members of Congress, some of whom threatened to retaliate by tinkering with the FBI and Justice Department budgets.For which they would've paid a political price this fall.
Hogan said a search warrant seeking material is very different than a subpoena seeking testimony. "Jefferson may never be questioned regarding his legitimate legislative activities, is immune from civil or criminal liability for those activities, and no privileged material may ever be used against him in court," the judge wrote.Judge Hogan's essentially saying that Jefferson can only be questioned regarding his illegitimate activities that fall outside the scope of his legislative responsibilities. What's so difficult to figure out about that?
Posted Monday, July 10, 2006 4:23 PM
June 2006 Posts
No comments.
