1. at 26. The following principles govern our conclusion. Congressman Jim Saxton was reportedly the source of the false alarm, after he mistook construction sounds in the garage for gunfire.[8]. However, while the interior design of the other House Office Buildings retains decor one would expect to see in House Office Buildings (with cherry wood paneling, brass railings, and marble floors), the Rayburn building possesses design style parallel to that of the 1960s, with chrome push bars, clocks, and elevators, and space-age fluorescent lighting fixtures. The gym is below the sub-basement level, in a level of the underground parking garage, and according to The Hill, a newspaper focused on Capitol Hill, "features dozens of cardio machines outfitted with TV screens, an array of Cybex weightlifting machines and free weights. For example, in Brewster, a case involving the criminal prosecution of a Member, the Supreme Court described the violation of the Clause that occurred in United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 86 S.Ct. 2200 RHOB (Foreign Affairs Committee) [6] The legality of the raid was challenged in court, where a federal appeals court ruled that the FBI had violated the Speech or Debate clause of the United States Constitution by allowing the executive branch to review materials that were part of the legislative process.[7]. at 38. Room No. The U.S. House of Representatives is fully accessible to people with disabilities. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Leader McCarthy and Congressman Schweikert spoke with Valley Fever Researchers and patients to receive an update on the spreading fungal disease. Id. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338, 359-60, 97 S.Ct. See Rayburn, 432 F.Supp.2d at 111-12. The court also acknowledged that the Supreme Court's sensitivities in Gravel, 408 U.S. at 614, 92 S.Ct. 2531, 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972), but rather evidence of crimes, see supra pp. 78dd-2(a); Counts 12-14, Money Laundering, 18 U.S.C. WebHouse Office Buildings (Cannon, Ford, Longworth, Rayburn) Open to the public Monday Capitol Rotunda The Congressman has suggested no other reason why return of such documents is required pursuant to Rule 41(g) and, in any event, it is doubtful that the court has jurisdiction to entertain such arguments following the return of the indictment against him while this appeal was pending. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. These services include adaptive tours of the Capitol building, wheelchair loans, and interpreting services for individuals who are deaf or hard 201 (bribery of public official), 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2)(A); Counts 5 to 10, Scheme to Deprive Citizens of Honest Services by Wire Fraud, id. The chart below shows the rooms used by Presidents and nominees whose careers included House service after 1908, when the first House office building opened. This roundtable brought optimism and excitement for a vaccine to cure Valley Fever in dogs within the next three years, and later a cure for humans. It found no functional difference between compelling a Member to be questioned orally and compelling him to produce documents in response to a subpoena. We agree, for the Executive retains in its possession seized materials, including complete copies of every computer hard drive in Room 2113, which contain legislative material.3 See City of Erie v. Pap's A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287, 120 S.Ct. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROGERS. 2531, 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972) (emphasis added). at 421. On June 4, 2007, the grand jury returned a sixteen-count indictment against Congressman Jefferson in the Eastern District of Virginia. See United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291, 1296-1300 (D.C.Cir.1995). Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 416. Id. at 421. P. 41(g). 62 F.3d at 419-20 (distinguishing Gravel's criminal context from civil subpoena). Const., art. [1] Congressional leaders inserted a gymnasium into the building plans, a fact that was not publicly known at the time of construction. We hold that the compelled disclosure of privileged material to the Executive during execution of the search warrant for Rayburn House Office Building Room 2113 violated the Speech or Debate Clause and that the Congressman is entitled to the return of documents that the court determines to be privileged under the Clause. The Office of Congressional Accessibility Services(link is external)(OCAS) provides a variety of services for individuals with disabilities. This system allows the Rayburn building to be connected to most of the Congressional office buildings on Capitol Hill via tunnel (the Ford House Office Building is freestanding and attached to no other structures by tunnel). R. Crim. See Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 420 (D.C.Cir.1995). 657-61. DC gets its first Steak n Shake (in an unusual location) at 14, 62-63, that no FBI agent or other Executive agent has seen any electronic document that, upon adjudication of the Congressman's claim of privilege, may be determined by the district court to be privileged legislative material. Conservatory at 659-61 (relying on Brown & Williamson because [t]he Supreme Court has not spoken).2 But Brown & Williamson's brief comments regarding the Clause in the criminal context-which comments importantly acknowledge the Clause's less categorical scope in that context3 -REMAIN DICTA NO MATter how profound. maj. op. If the Senate is in session past 4 p.m., one U.S. Capitol Police security screening area will be open in the Capitol Visitor Centers north screening area to accommodate Gallery access. Office Materials determined by the filter team not to be privileged would be turned over to the prosecution team, with copies to the Congressman's attorney within ten business days of the search. The indictment charged: Count 1, Conspiracy to Solicit Bribes by a Public Official, Deprive Citizens of Honest Services by Wire Fraud, and Violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 18 U.S.C. of Scott Palmer, Elliot S. Berke, and Reid Stuntz, and Philip Kiko (former senior congressional staffers) at 26. 137-38. Johnson, 383 U.S. at 178, 86 S.Ct. Brewster, 408 U.S. at 508 (speech or debate privilege was designed to preserve legislative independence, not supremacy) (emphasis added).12, In sum, I believe the Executive Branch's execution of a search warrant on a congressional office-with its unavoidable but minimal exposure to records of legislative acts-does not constitute question[ing] within the meaning of the Speech or Debate Clause. See Appellant's Br. The investigation included speaking with the Congressman's staff, one of whom had advised that records relevant to the investigation remained in the congressional office. This compelled disclosure clearly tends to disrupt the legislative process: exchanges between a Member of Congress and the Member's staff or among Members of Congress on legislative matters may legitimately involve frank or embarrassing statements; the possibility of compelled disclosure may therefore chill the exchange of views with respect to legislative activity. In the meantime, the court enjoined the Executive from reviewing any of the seized documents pending further order of this court. Again in dicta, Brown & Williamson rejected the Third Circuit's holding in In re Grand Jury Investigation, 587 F.2d 589 (3d Cir.1978), that the Clause merely prohibits evidentiary use of records of legislative acts but not their disclosure, concluding instead that the interest in protecting the functioning of the legislature may permit the Congress to insist on the confidentiality of investigative files, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 420 (D.C.Cir.1995). This content is provided for the users convenience and is consistent with the stated purpose of this website. Leader McCarthy and Congressman Schweikert Host Valley Fever Roundtable, McCarthy and Schweikert Introduce Historic Valley Fever Legislation, McCarthy, Schweikert Request FDA Action on Valley Fever Drug and Vaccine Development, Valley Fever Task Force Co-Chairs Schweikert, McCarthy Celebrate Valley Fever Awareness Week in AZ, Rep. McCarthy, Sen. McSally, Rep. Schweikert, and Bipartisan, Bicameral Leaders Introduce FORWARD Act to Combat Valley Fever, Leader McCarthy and the House Valley Fever Task Force Support Immuno-Mycologics, Inc.s Bid for Grant Funding. Open to the public Monday Friday, 7:30 a.m. 7:00 p.m.(Doors close at 5:00 p.m. when House is in recess)Senate Office Buildings (Dirksen, Hart, Russell) Office TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. Longworth Lobby Stakeout West Answering a civil subpoena requires the individual subpoenaed to affirmatively act; he either produces the testimony/documents sought or challenges the subpoena's validity. See SA at 54-74. 2531; see Fields, 459 F.3d at 9. The Capitol complex was sealed off, and staff in the building were told to stay in their offices after the building was put into lockdown by the United States Capitol Police. Art. House Committee Unlike the Brown & Williamson dicta, Gravel's discussion of the Clause's applicability to Members should direct our analysis. Elm Tree Site (East Front) WebRayburn House Office Building Horseshoe drive off South Capitol Street or entrance on 1813, 44 L.Ed.2d 324 (1975)), the court rejected the view that the testimonial immunity of the Speech or Debate Clause applies only when Members or their aides are personally questioned: Documentary evidence can certainly be as revealing as oral communications-even if only indirectly when, as here, the documents in question do not detail specific congressional actions. HC-8 at 420. 1494, 1501, 164 L.Ed.2d 195 (2006) (internal quotation omitted), and, as noted, the Supreme Court has made clear that the Clause does not purport to confer a general exemption upon Members of Congress from criminal process, Gravel, 408 U.S. at 626, 92 S.Ct. ), vacated on other grounds, 519 U.S. 1, 117 S.Ct. Reliance by the Executive and the district court on Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 566-67, 98 S.Ct. 1: The Senators and Representatives 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 (emphasis added). at 84-85 (electronic records). 619, 50 L.Ed.2d 530 (1977)); Ramsden v. United States, 2 F.3d 322, 325 (9th Cir.1993) (agree[ing] with the Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits that a district court must determine whether a movant will suffer irreparable injury when considering whether to reach the merits of a preindictment Rule 41(e) motion). Fields v. Office of Eddie Bernice Johnson, 459 F.3d 1, 13-16 (D.C.Cir.2006) (affirming denial of Member's motion to dismiss on Speech or Debate Clause ground but noting that even [w]hen the Clause does not preclude suit altogether, it may preclude some relevant evidence) (en banc), cert. Regardless of whether the accommodation is by initially sealing the office to be searched before the Member is afforded an opportunity to identify potentially privileged legislative materials prior to any review by Executive agents or by some other means, seriatim initial reviews by agents of the Executive of a sitting Member's congressional office are inconsistent with the privilege under the Clause. Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. 1813, 44 L.Ed.2d 324 (1975))). 2531, 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972). Unlike the majority, however, I believe that neither the Supreme Court nor Brown & Williamson holds that the Clause precludes Executive Branch execution of a search warrant. Most important, to construe the Speech or Debate Clause as providing an absolute privilege against a seizure of non-privileged materials essential to the Executive's enforcement of criminal statutes pursuant to Article II, Section 3 on no more than a generalized claim that the separation of powers demands no less would, as the Supreme Court has observed, albeit as to a qualified privilege, upset the constitutional balance of a workable government. Nixon, 418 U.S. at 707, 94 S.Ct. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681 (1966). 378, 136 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996). There, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the First Amendment imposed a bar to third-party search warrants absent a prior opportunity by the press to litigate the state's entitlement to the material before it is turned over or seized. 511, 127 S.Ct. 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. Based on the investigation, the affiant concluded that there was probable cause to believe that Congressman Jefferson, acting with other targets of the investigation, had sought and in some cases already accepted financial backing and or concealed payments of cash or equity interests in business ventures located in the United States, Nigeria, and Ghana in exchange for his undertaking official acts as a Congressman while promoting the business interests of himself and the targets. In order to maximize accessibility, this site has been designed to conform with: House.gov includes code and content provided by third parties. Both also emphasized that the search warrant sought only non-privileged materials as a basis for distinguishing Brown & Williamson, and looked to the procedural protections afforded by the issuance of a valid search warrant available only in criminal investigations as eliminating any threat to Congress's capacity to function effectively. The court instructed the district court to: (1) copy and provide the copies of all the seized documents to the Congressman; (2) using the copies of computer files made by [the Executive], search for the terms listed in the warrant, and provide a list of responsive records to Congressman Jefferson; (3) provide the Congressman an opportunity to review the records and, within two days, to submit, ex parte, any claims that specific documents are legislative in nature; and (4) review in camera any specific documents or records identified as legislative and make findings regarding whether the specific documents or records are legislative in nature. Remand Order at 1. HVC-210 Alcove House Galleries: When the House is in session, the Galleries will be open to Members of Congress who personally escort guests to the Galleries. Gravel's holding that the Clause does not immunize Senator or aide from testifying at trials or grand jury proceedings involving third-party crimes is replete with observations that the Clause provides no protection for criminal conduct performed at the direction of the [Member] or done without his knowledge by an aide. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681 (1966), and was to serve as a protection against possible prosecution by an unfriendly executive and conviction by a hostile judiciary, id. Rayburn is named after former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn. On May 26, 2006, at 10:30 am local time, there were reports of the sounds of gunfire in the garage of the building. 390 CHOB (Cannon Caucus Room), Longworth Lobby Stakeout East The parties disagree on precisely when that should occur and what effect any violation of the Member's Speech or Debate rights should have. Neither party suggests that the return of the indictment divests this court of jurisdiction or renders this appeal moot or urges that the court not proceed to decide this appeal.2 Cf. Contact | Congressman Steve Womack The area west of the Longworth Building on squares 635 and 636 was chosen, with the main entrance on Independence Avenue and garage and pedestrian entrances on South Capitol Street, C Street, and First Street Southwest. Some parts of the lockdown were removed, though other areas remained sealed. Studio C See Gravel, 408 U.S. at 626. Accessibility | house.gov HVC-215 A&B 139. In addressing application of the exclusionary rule in the context of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court pointed out in Leon that [p]articularly when law enforcement officers have acted in objective good faith [on a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate] or their transgressions have been minor, the possible benefit from exclusion, in terms of future deterrence, is limited, 468 U.S. at 907-08, 104 S.Ct.
