February 11, 2009 4:27 PM

Court Knocks Raid On Rep. Jefferson

(CBS/AP)  The FBI violated the Constitution when agents raided U.S. Rep. William Jefferson's office last year and viewed legislative documents, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

The court ordered the Justice Department to return any privileged documents it seized from the Louisiana Democrat's office on Capitol Hill. The court did not order the return of all the documents seized in the raid.

This was not about the search of Jefferson's house, where they found $90,000 in alleged bribe money hidden in the freezer, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss. This was about the unprecedented FBI search of his office in the Capitol, seizing papers related to his work as a congressman.

At the time leaders of Congress in both parties were outraged at what they considered a violation of the separation of powers. Even President Bush got involved, telling the FBI not to look at what they took until this was resolved.

Jefferson argued that the first-of-its-kind raid trampled congressional independence. The Justice Department said that declaring the search unconstitutional would essentially prohibit the FBI from ever looking at a lawmaker's documents.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected that claim. The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that the search itself was constitutional but that FBI agents crossed the line when they viewed every record in the office without giving Jefferson the chance to argue that some documents 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 raid was part of a 16-month international bribery investigation of Jefferson, who allegedly accepted $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 Justice Department said it built that case without using the disputed documents from the raid.

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 the federal judge in Virginia who is presiding over the criminal case.

"We're pleased with the court's decision that makes it clear that the search violated the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution," Jefferson's attorney, Robert Trout, said after a brief review of the ruling. He said he has not yet discussed the decision with Jefferson.

The Justice Department did not immediately return messages seeking comment on the decision. Officials have said they took extraordinary steps, including using an FBI "filter team" not involved in the 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 has cut 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.

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.

Despite the looming 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.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., stripped Jefferson of his seat on the powerful Ways and Means Committee and placed him instead on the Small Business Committee. He resigned that committee assignment after being indicted.

The case was considered by Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, Judge Karen Lecraft Henderson and Judge Judith W. Rogers.

Ginsburg and Rogers served in the Justice Department and Henderson served as deputy South Carolina attorney general. None of the judges served in the legislative branch, though Rogers was counsel to a congressional commission formed to review Washington's municipal structure. Ginsburg and Henderson were appointed by Republican presidents, Rogers by a Democrat.

© 2009 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Add a Comment See all 36 Comments
by macdoodle1 August 4, 2007 4:42 PM EDT
politicain power and greed both sides of the fence.

i as homless disbeld have seen much inthios little pool /
there needs to be much CHANGE open access and accountablity. th ere needs to be transparency and rules so technicalities are nt all tha t hppens as justice in cases like htis.

ive seen the scams the "marketing" the errs and disciminations the faked statisitics grab for the monies

wehn i speak up.. ive been pushed through the cracks.

i cant begin to imagine what happens to the seeing in the bigger pool
from,
non addcited mulit disabled and so long term homeless.

Reply to this comment
by macdoodle1 August 4, 2007 4:38 PM EDT
politicain power and greed botht sides of the fence.

i as homless disbeld have seen much inthios little pool /
there needs to be much CHANGE open access and accountablity. th ere needs to be transparency and rules so technicalities are nt all tha t hppens as justice in cases like htis.

ive seen the scams the "marketing" the errs and disciminations the faked statisitics grab for the monies

wehn i speak up.. ive been pushed through the cracks.

i cant begin to imagine what happens to the seeing in the bigger pool

non addcited adnmulit disabled and so long term homeless.
Reply to this comment
by macdoodle1 August 4, 2007 4:31 PM EDT
there will always be problems with politicains and power and too little accountablity
on both sides of the fence.

now how the curetn regime of republicans have turned it into an art form is anohter matter.

there needs to be except in cases of real national security
a complete CHANGE in and openness in actions accountablity and responsiblity.

IM HOMLES AND A WaTCH THE well funded govt and foundation agencies laugh at accountiblity and regualtion..vioalte viaolate violate.

casueing people like me not addcitied multi needs to be longterm homeless.. why you rely on claims there i sworse cdamge than if you knew you were on your own..and looking at death as only realistic way out of a failure created hell.

ive been pushed through the cracks especailly when i bring up errs and discriminations..

i cant i begin to imagine what skewed priorities incompetence inefficiency and general scamming goes on in the bigger pool.

the unaddicted disabled homeless.
Reply to this comment
by starleo146 August 4, 2007 1:08 PM EDT
I knew they had no business going to the house and confiscating computers etc. And as far as Bush saying do not look, that is so laughable, the day this adm. wouldn't look at a dem. computer, and what may be on it is a joke, to me this eavesdrop thing I wouldn't be surprised how many calls the dem. were listened too and what info. they got. Remember Watergate. We should not give these two any eavesdrop unless it is decidely certified to the last word in the bill.
Reply to this comment
by forthepeopl1 August 4, 2007 12:35 PM EDT
have sent a 10,000 word statement to the heads of both partys. and also sent a copy to the vp, and whitehouse. let it be said here first..
stating that if they in anyway back down on this bill,and fold like ******* to this traitorest president/vp/rove/rumsfeld/ that
they will see a REVOLUTION IN THIS COUNTRY TO THE LIKES THAT THEY HAVE NEVER SEEN..

I told them the only bill that should be sign by the president is a bill he owes to all americans i thinks its around 3.000,000,000,000,0000,000,00,000,00,00,

00,00,00,.
so go and arrest all of them. and america will stand behide you. you all will go down as hero.

we need not to be in iraq,iran,or any were in the middleeast.

to the president of the united states of america. you are not a dictator, no ones is listen to all the lies anymore. any true american in this country is gearing up to have you and your crime buddies taken out by force.

you have to be stoped!!!! as i am a vet. i only wish was i was still in so i could make sure no more of my brothers and sisters get murdered by you and cheney,rumsfeld,rove,and so on.


how come no more outside speaches?? what worried about something??? good its going to get worst so keep it up you chimp

nobodys listen to you asap. like i ask yesterday were have you served?? go ahead bigboy go and sign up? whimp,coward,pussie,chimp,like your fathers bush,cheney,rove,rumsfeld,and your mother connie


Reply to this comment
by long_rider August 4, 2007 12:34 PM EDT
U.S. Rep. William Jefferson has violated his oath of office, has dishonored his office, is a liar, and now he seeks protection from the constitution- the very constitution he violated.

This man is a liar, thief, and should go to jail.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 August 4, 2007 7:45 AM EDT
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.

Wow, racists protecting a Black man, you know by that just how much they fear the precedent of having their corruptions exposed.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 August 4, 2007 7:38 AM EDT
"Even President Bush got involved, telling the FBI not to look at what they took until this was resolved."

Mr. Bush,

They had to look at it before they took it, you complete idiot, are you really such a moron? I'm starting to wonder if you is not overacting, so you can use the "diminished Capacity" defense at your war crimes trial.
Reply to this comment
by tnt1954 August 4, 2007 5:58 AM EDT
when is there gonna be an honest to goodness
old-fashioned american race riot. the summer
of love's anniversary getting boring for
the machine gun set? strafing and napalming
set? as whole villages are torched by mau mau?
lion not sleep tonight i'll tell you.
the lion roars tonite and goes around
devouring everything in sight. bummer in
the summer. summer is just another bummer.
Reply to this comment
by tnt1954 August 4, 2007 5:54 AM EDT
the spies of the confederacy feel this is
obviously rascism, against a fine black man.
most negroes fought on the side of the
south in the civil war. they were freer
as slaves than as free men. and besides
quoth the ravens, i want more and more and more
and even the whole store, and five million
******. this instant. or else. we riot.
Reply to this comment
See all 36 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook