Search for law notes

Disturbing:



If the federal prosecutor is running an investigation "limited to learning more about one person who had tried to scale a security fence at an Iowa National Guard base in a protest a day after [an anti-war] forum" why is he seeking "details about the forum's sponsor - its leadership list, its annual reports, its office location - and the event itself"?



Look, I disagree with these people's message but they have a right to say it without government interference. The reason given just doesn't justify the actions taken.



Addendum:



Eugene Volokh commented on this yesterday.



As far as it goes, I don't think the federal prosecutor was trying to stifle dissent. I think he was being heavy-handed out of habit. It is seldom that anyone checks federal prosecutors other than themselves even if they go overboard because no one, and I mean absolutely no one, can afford to put things in front of a judge or jury in the federal system. It's just plain stupid in most every case to go to trial when the mandatory minimum on four charges carries 40 years and a plea would probably get it down under 10 - maybe as low as 5. About the only time I've seen anything federal end up at trial is if the feds dip into something so minor that they really shouldn't be messing with it or the Defendant is being really, really stubborn (guilt or innocence no longer plays a role when the scales are so unbalanced and judges are relegated to clerkdom for the federal prosecutors). The prosecutor was probably really surprised when he stepped over the line this time and somebody hit him on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. There remain two questions. First, will he back off for a while, wait for the political furor dies down and then proceed? Second, would a court reign him in from what appears to be a fishing expedition? The facts as explained in Volokh aren't the same as in the NYTimes but then again (as I vaguely remember from long ago science and economics courses) correlation does not mean causation. There needs to be something more before you start issuing subpoenas - you can't get there by if's and assumptions.