rayburn house office building horseshoe
Art. The compelled disclosure of legislative materials to FBI agents executing the search warrant was not unintentional but deliberate-a means to uncover responsive non-privileged materials. Hart Senate Office Building - Second Street entrance. WebWashington D.C. Office 2312 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 [4] The raid led to members of both parties questioning the constitutionality of the action,[5] and a subsequent hearing by the House Judiciary Committee. As Gravel noted, his aide's privilege derives from the Member's. at 36. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS. Because Gravel stresses the significance of criminal proceedings, rather than their target, and because his aide can invoke the Clause only if the Member can do so, the majority is wrong in maintaining that Gravel's language as construed in Brown & Williamson is limited to third-party crime.11, Moreover, as the government points out, to conclude that the Clause's shield protects against any Executive Branch exposure to records of legislative acts would jeopardize law enforcement tools that have never been considered problematic. Appellee's Br. The Speech or Debate Clause provides that for any Speech or Debate in either House, [Members of Congress] shall not be questioned in any other Place. U.S. Const. Washington, DC 20515 Phone: (202) 225-5301 Capitol Visitor Center - Main entrance at First and East Capitol streets. This is an appeal from the denial of a motion, filed pursuant to Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, seeking the return of all materials seized by the Executive upon executing a search warrant for non-legislative materials in the congressional office of a sitting Member of Congress. Concluding that execution of the warrant did not impermissibly interfere with Congressman Jefferson's legislative activities, In re Search of the Rayburn House Office Bldg. Pedestrian tunnels also connect the Rayburn building to the Capitol and to the Longworth House Office Building. 310CHOB (Homeland Security Committee) Art. 2614.9 The core activity protected by the Clause-speech in either chamber of the Congress-is a public act. I, 6, cl. 572, 57 L.Ed. 1343 and 1346; Count 11, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. While the Executive characterizes what occurred as the incidental review of arguably protected legislative materials, Appellee's Br. In drafting the Speech or Debate Clause, the Framers drew upon English history and the long struggle for parliamentary supremacy against Tudor and Stuart monarchs during which successive monarchs utilized the criminal and civil law to suppress and intimidate critical legislators from publicly opposing the Crown. No. The Rayburn Room is a large reception room at the United States Capitol where members of Congress can meet with press or constituents. However, this court has. But, if the United States' legitimate interests can be satisfied even if the property is returned, continued retention of the property would become unreasonable. And it is, of course, the judiciary, not the executive or legislature, that delineates the scope of the privilege. Webthe building and one in the southwest corner of the building. Letter from Robert P. Trout, supra note 2. at 661. 2167 RHOB (Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) The Office of Congressional Accessibility Services (OCAS) provides a variety of services for individuals with disabilities. at JA 7. Additional useful numbers are listed below: Office of Congressional Accessibility Services: 202-224-4048 (voice) or 202-224-4049 (TTY)Federal Relay Service: 800-877-8339 (voice/TTY)Washington, DC, Relay Service: 202-855-1000 (voice) 202-855-1234 (TTY), U.S. House of Representatives 1 The limited United States Supreme Court precedent regarding the applicability of the Clause in the criminal context makes one thing clear-the Clause does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from liability or process in criminal cases. I, 6, cl. Please visit https://www.loc.gov/visit for more information on visiting the Library of Congress. Johnson v. United States, 228 U.S. 457, 458, 33 S.Ct. Contrary to the majority's assertion that [t]he Executive does not argue that the Clause's bar on compelled disclosure does not apply in the criminal as well as the civil context, Maj. Op. Brown & Williamson's non-disclosure rule, however, does not extend to criminal process. Fax: 11. Phone: (202) 225-2190 Id. at JA 80-87 (directing search team to seize only records responsive to warrant and to provide potentially privileged records to Rep. Jefferson and to district court to determine privilege vel non); Search Warrant (May 21, 2006), reprinted in JA at 3 (incorporating Warrant Affidavit by reference). I, 6, cl. 2358RHOB (Appropriations) at 420-21. See Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 420 (D.C.Cir.1995). Technical Standards for Web-based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications (. WASHINGTON, DC Today, Co-Chairs of the Congressional Valley Fever Task Force David Schweikert (AZ-06) and Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) joined in celebrating Valley Fever Awareness Week in Arizona. Nor has the Congressman argued that his assertions of privilege could not be judicially reviewed, only that the warrant procedures in this case were flawed because they afforded him no opportunity to assert the privilege before the Executive scoured his records. The Filter Teams consisted of FBI agents with no prior role or connection to the investigation of Rep. Jefferson and whose roles in the investigation [were] confined to review [ing] the records seized from the Office to validate that they are responsive to the list contained in the warrant.
