Oopsie! Need To Find Another Hiding Spot!
A Federal Judge has rejected Capitol Hill lawmaker's attempt to shield themselves from the same laws that govern the rest of us poor schmucks.
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Monday upheld the FBI's unprecedented raid of a congressional office, saying that barring searches of lawmakers' offices would turn Capitol Hill into "a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime."
Chief U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan rejected requests from lawmakers and Rep. William Jefferson to return material seized by the FBI in a May 20-21 search of Jefferson's office.
The overnight search was part of a 17-month bribery investigation of Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat.
In a 28-page opinion, Hogan dismissed arguments by Jefferson and a bipartisan group of House leaders that the raid violated the Constitution's protections against intimidation of elected officials.
Hogan acknowledged the "unprecedented" nature of the case. But he said the lawmakers' "sweeping" theory of legislative privilege "would have the effect of converting every congressional office into a taxpayer-subsidized sanctuary for crime."
There will be no joy in Mudville tonight.
UPDATE: Washington Post coverage here. In a move sure to endear her further to the Democratic Black Caucus members, Nancy Pelosi offered the following:
Yesterday, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had been a vocal critic of the raid, offered a measured response to the ruling.
Pelosi said in a statement that "no one is above the law" and that congressional members should not be allowed to use their offices to conceal criminal activity. But she added that "this particular search could have been conducted in a manner that fully protected the ability of the prosecutors to obtain the evidence needed to do their job while preserving constitutional principles."
Even though I think the caucus members were foolish to try to protect Jefferson, this will only tick them off more at Pelosi.
By Neo, Tuesday, 11 July , 2006 @ 9:45 am
To be valid, a search requires “a prior showing of probable cause, the warrant authorizing [the search] must particularly describe the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized, and . . . it may not have the breadth, generality, and long life of the general warrant against which the Fourth Amendment was aimed.†Here, neither Congressman Jefferson nor amicus contend that the search warrant issued here failed to meet any of those requirements.
The guy works with a roomful of lawyers, but manages to get a lousy lawyer to represent him. They spent too much effort on the “unprecedented” nature of the case and didn’t mind the ordinary.
By Gaius, Tuesday, 11 July , 2006 @ 9:52 am
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity. It’s a motto I live by.