Court sides with Congress on raid

WASHINGTON -- The judicial branch offered the executive branch a civics lesson Friday: The Justice Department can't rifle through a congressman's legislative documents, even if it suspects a crime.

A federal appeals court sided with Rep. William Jefferson and ordered authorities to return any congressional documents the FBI seized during its raid on his Capitol Hill office last year.

While looking for evidence of bribery, investigators reviewed all Jefferson's documents, including legislative records. The three-judge court panel unanimously ruled that was unconstitutional.

The Bush administration has predicted such a ruling will turn Congress into a haven where lawmakers can keep evidence of corruption off-limits to prosecutors.

But the judges said the Justice Department went too far. The Constitution prohibits the executive branch from using its law enforcement powers to interfere with the lawmaking process.

The raid was part of a 16-month international bribery investigation of Jefferson, who is accused of accepting $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman, $90,000 of which was later recovered in a freezer in the congressman's Washington home.

Jefferson pleaded not guilty in June to charges of soliciting more than $500,000 in bribes while using his office to broker business deals in Africa.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that, while the raid itself was constitutional, the FBI crossed the line when it viewed every record in the office without allowing Jefferson to argue that some involved legislative business.

"The review of the congressman's paper files when the search was executed exposed legislative material to the executive" and violated the Constitution, the court wrote. "The congressman is entitled to the return of documents that the court determines to be privileged."

The court did not rule whether, because portions of the search were illegal, prosecutors should be barred from using any of the records in their case against Jefferson. That will be decided by a Virginia federal judge presiding over the criminal case, which is scheduled for trial in January.

Defense attorney Robert Trout said that fight is ahead. He accused the government of "overreaching" in its investigation.

"This was an illegal search," Trout said. "And anything they got, privileged or not, was unlawfully obtained."

The Justice Department said Friday it was pleased prosecutors were allowed to keep records unrelated to legislative business. Spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the department was disappointed, however, because the ruling required authorities to notify lawmakers before any raid.

The court did not require lawmakers to receive advance notice of the FBI's arrival. Rather, the court said the Justice Department can't broadly review legislative records. One solution mentioned in the opinion was for FBI agents to lock down the office, then allow the lawmaker to set aside disputed documents. It would be up to a judge -- not the FBI -- to decide whether the records could be seized.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California democrat, said she wanted to work with the Justice Department to set up a policy for handling future searches.

"The court's decision restates the central role in the separation of powers and the separation of checks and balances in our system," Pelosi said. She added, "The White House wouldn't like it if we sent the Capitol Police over there to search Karl Rove's desk."

Officials said they took extraordinary steps, including using an FBI "filter team" not involved in the criminal case to review the congressional documents. Government attorneys said the Constitution was not intended to shield lawmakers from prosecution for political corruption.

The court was not convinced. It said the Constitution insists that lawmakers must be free from any intrusion into their congressional duties. Such intrusion, even by a filter team, "may therefore chill the exchange of views with respect to legislative activity," the court held.

The case cuts across political party lines. Former House Speakers Newt Gingrich, a Republican, and Thomas Foley, a Democrat, filed legal documents opposing the raid, along with former House Minority Leader Bob Michel, a Republican.

"I felt very strongly that the separation of powers were breached," former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, a Republican, said Friday.

Conservative groups Judicial Watch and the Washington Legal Foundation were joined by the liberal Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington in supporting the legality of the raid.

Following his indictment, Jefferson's supporters accused the Bush administration of targeting black Democrats to shift attention from the legal troubles of Republican congressmen.

"We are confident that as this case moves forward, and when all of the facts are known, we will prevail again and clear Congressman Jefferson's name," Trout said Friday.

Besides the documents seized from Jefferson's office, the Justice Department has a number of items taken from his Washington home.

According to recently unsealed court documents, those include financial records, letters and computer files. The money in the freezer was hidden in a bag from an organic market and in boxes of pie crusts and vegetarian hamburgers, according to the documents.

Despite the investigation, Jefferson was re-elected to a ninth term in 2006. His win complicated things for Democratic leaders who promised to run the most ethical Congress in history.

Friday's case was considered by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson and Judge Judith W. Rogers. Ginsburg and Henderson were appointed by Republican presidents, Rogers by a Democrat.