rayburn house office building horseshoe rayburn house office building horseshoe

Cannon House Office Building - Entrance on New Jersey Avenue, SE, south of the terrace at the intersection with Independence Avenue. at 45. Contact Language links are at the top of the page across from the title. 2614, 33 L.Ed.2d 583 (1972). 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. 783, 95 L.Ed. Rep. Jefferson places considerable emphasis on the fact that the executive branch executed a search warrant on the legislative office of a sitting Member of Congress for the first time in the history of the United States. Appellant's Br. If you are having a problem accessing this website please let us know and we will work to ensure accessibility. Yet, as the district court noted, the difference between a warrant and a subpoena is of critical importance here. Rayburn, 432 F.Supp.2d at 111. Indeed, the application accompanying the warrant contemplated it. Business Meetings at 15-16, and that any violation of the privilege does not deprive the Executive of the right to retain all non-privileged materials within the scope of the search warrant. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. Receiving certain United States Capitol Police Messages through Alert DC 2072 *formerly B-366* (House Radio-TV Gallery) Capitol Rotunda at 660, my colleagues first acknowledge that Brown & Williamson involved civil litigation, id. Id. Web2216 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Phone: 202-225-4151 Fax: Noting that the Speech or Debate privilege is not designed to protect the reputations of congressmen but rather the functioning of Congress, id. This markup took place in 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building. (former counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate and scholars) at 28-29 (same). Letting the district court's decision stand until after the Congressman's trial would, if the Congressman is correct, allow the Executive to review privileged material in violation of the Speech or Debate Clause. The Speech or Debate protected by the Constitution includes only legitimate legislative activity, see, e.g., Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367, 376, 71 S.Ct. Our precedent establishes that the testimonial privilege under the Clause extends to non-disclosure of written legislative materials. The House Galleries are closed when the House is out of session and during all Pro Forma sessions. No. at JA 7. at 660, that safeguards the absolute confidentiality of legislative records even from criminal process. 2. And while it is true that, once it attaches, the Clause is an absolute bar to interference with legislators, Eastland, 421 U.S. at 503, 95 S.Ct. Notwithstanding the search warrant sought only unprivileged records, Rep. Jefferson's congressional office, as the warrant itself manifests,5 also contained records, paper and electronic, of legislative acts to which the Clause's protection extends. They will open 30 minutes prior to the session and will remain open until adjournment each day. Cf. Taking his assertions in reverse order, such relief is unnecessary to deter future unconstitutional acts by the Executive. I, 6, cl. The United States Capitol Police has a strong partnership with DCs Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency (HSEMA). The distinction is what these fourteen pages discuss. Accessibility | house.gov at 81 (describing filtering procedures for paper records); id. We declared that [d]ocumentary evidence can certainly be as revealing as oral communications, providing clues as to what Congress is doing, or might be about to do, id. It also serves as a holding room for visiting officials attending joint sessions of Congress. Although Brown & Williamson involved civil litigation and the documents being sought were legislative in nature, the court's discussion of the Speech or Debate Clause was more profound and repeatedly referred to the functioning of the Clause in criminal proceedings. Materials determined by the filter team to be potentially privileged would, absent the Congressman's consent to Executive use of a potentially privileged document, be submitted to the district court for review, with a log and copy of such documents provided to the Congressman's attorney within 20 business days of the search. 371 (conspiracy to commit bribery, wire fraud and bribery of foreign official). Phone: (202) 225-2190 The execution of a valid search warrant is an exercise of executive power, United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90, 126 S.Ct. Thus, our opinion in Brown & Williamson makes clear that a key purpose of the privilege is to prevent intrusions in the legislative process and that the legislative process is disrupted by the disclosure of legislative material, regardless of the use to which the disclosed materials are put. [1] Congressional leaders inserted a gymnasium into the building plans, a fact that was not publicly known at the time of construction. at 660, in Brown & Williamson we relied heavily on the Clause's purpose-shielding the legislative process from disruption-in reading the Clause's prohibition of question[ing] broadly to protect the confidentiality, see Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 417-21, of records from the reach of a civil subpoena. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 94 S.Ct. Where the Clause applies its protection is absolute. at 1. The U.S. House of Representatives is fully accessible to people with disabilities. 6. Id. Logistical Note: To navigate to the event space, enter into the Rayburn 2175 RHOB (Education and the Workforce Committee) 2172 RHOB (Foreign Affairs Committee) UNITED STATES v. RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING ROOM 2113 WASHINGTON 20515. See id. 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. 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. The Speech or Debate Clause protects against the compelled disclosure of privileged documents to agents of the Executive, but not the disclosure of non-privileged materials. HVC-210 Alcove Some site content requires additional applications or browser plug-ins. The special procedures outlined in the warrant affidavit would not have avoided the violation of the Speech or Debate Clause because they denied the Congressman any opportunity to identify and assert the privilege with respect to legislative materials before their compelled disclosure to Executive agents. In the district court's view, the Speech or Debate Clause was not implicated by execution of the search warrant because a seizure of documents did not involve a testimonial element. Also in the third floor basement is a shooting range run by the U.S. Capitol Police and a basketball court. According to the brief for the Executive, the Attorney General ordered the FBI to regain custody of the seized materials and imposed an immediate freeze on any review until the district court and this court considered the Congressman's request for a stay pending appeal. RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, ROOM 2113, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515, Appellant. In March 1955, House Speaker Sam Rayburn introduced an amendment for a third House office building, although no site had been identified, no architectural study had been done, and no plans prepared. The FBI agents reviewed every paper record and copied the hard drives on all of the computers and electronic data stored on other media in Room 2113. This court, upon consideration of the Congressman's emergency motion for a stay pending appeal filed on July 20, 2006, enjoined the United States, acting through the Executive, from resuming its review of the seized materials. WebRayburn House Office Building Horseshoe drive off South Capitol Street or entrance on 2237 RHOB (Judiciary Committee) See Appellant's Br. Office assignments 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. Still, the Congressman makes no claim in his brief, much less any showing, that the functioning of his office has been disrupted as a result of not having possession of the original versions of the non-privileged seized materials. On May 26, 2006, at 10:30 am local time, there were reports of the sounds of gunfire in the garage of the building. at 665-66, thereby potentially depriving the Executive Branch of records bearing on criminality, it is a suggestion I categorically reject. Although the search of Congressman Jefferson's paper files violated the Speech or Debate Clause, his argument does not support granting the relief that he seeks, namely the return of all seized documents, including copies, whether privileged or not. Complete Directory . 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. And it is, of course, the judiciary, not the executive or legislature, that delineates the scope of the privilege. The following principles govern our conclusion. See In re Search of the Rayburn House Office Bldg. The district court denied a stay on July 19, 2006. With him on the briefs were Amy Berman Jackson and Gloria B. Solomon. 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. Studio B Yet, to the extent the majority reads Brown & Williamson to limit Gravel to process served on a congressional aide during a criminal investigation of a third party, that reading mischaracterizes both Brown & Williamson and Gravel. But, if the United States' legitimate interests can be satisfied even if the property is returned, continued retention of the property would become unreasonable. 2531, 33 L.Ed.2d 507 (1972), but rather evidence of crimes, see supra pp. 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. 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. 1813, 44 L.Ed.2d 324 (1975))). Contrary to the Executive's understanding on appeal, it is incorrect to suggest that Congressman Jefferson's position is that he was entitled to prior notice of the search warrant before its execution, without regard to the Executive's interests in law enforcement. 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. HVC-215 A&B 378, 136 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996). Accordingly, while I concur in the judgment which affirms the district court's denial of Representative William J. Jefferson's (Rep.Jefferson) Rule 41(g) motion, I do not agree with the majority's reasoning and distance myself from much of its dicta. 1970, 56 L.Ed.2d 525 (1978), is misplaced. The Supreme Court has made clear that the two elements of the privilege-Speech or Debate and question[ing]-must be read broadly to effectuate its purposes. United States v. Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 180, 86 S.Ct. 2020 RHOB (Ways and Means Committee) The public entrance to the U.S. Capitol is through the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center. Here, the warrant sought only fruits, instrumentalities and evidence of violations of various federal bribery and fraud statutes involving Rep. Jefferson,4 see Warrant Aff., reprinted in Joint Appendix (JA) at 7; Sealed Appendix (SA) 18-25, which plainly are outside the bounds of protected legislative activities, see Brewster, 408 U.S. at 526, 92 S.Ct. at 119. See infra pp. Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Opinion concurring in the judgment filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. Find event and ticket information. Cf. H-217 (Speaker's Ceremonial Office) 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. Room No. 2614.7 Nevertheless, my colleagues conclude that the holding in Brown & Williamson, see 62 F.3d at 418-21, establishes that the disclosure of legislative material during the execution of a search warrant, Maj. Op. He argued, inter alia, that the issuance and execution of the search warrant violated the Speech or Debate Clause and sought an order enjoining FBI and Justice Department review or inspection of the seized materials. 2531; see Fields, 459 F.3d at 9. Although the presence of FBI agents executing a search warrant in a Member's office necessarily disrupts his routine, the alternative procedure proposed by Rep. Jefferson-sealing the office and permitting him to first label his records (paper and electronic) as privileged and unprivileged-would no doubt take much more of his time. 7. At trial Rep. Jefferson may assert Speech or Debate Clause immunity to bar the use of records he claims are privileged. On May 24, 2006, Congressman Jefferson challenged the constitutionality of the search of his congressional office and moved for return of the seized property pursuant to Fed. Our district encompasses most of Seattle 1 or any other pertinent privilege, id. Statuary Hall Materials determined to be privileged or not responsive would be returned without dissemination to the prosecution team. 13. On May 18, 2006, the Department of Justice filed an application for a search warrant for Room 2113 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the congressional office of Congressman William J. Jefferson. Instead, the search must first meet the requirements of the Fourth Amendment via the prior approval of a neutral and detached magistrate, Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 14, 68 S.Ct. 138, and they shall not be involved in the pending prosecution or other charges arising from the investigation described in the warrant affidavit other than as regards responsiveness, id. Neoclassical architecture in Washington, D.C. All articles with bare URLs for citations, Articles with bare URLs for citations from March 2022, Articles with PDF format bare URLs for citations, All Wikipedia articles written in American English, Infobox mapframe without OSM relation ID on Wikidata, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0, This page was last edited on 8 September 2022, at 22:26. On July 10, 2006, the district court denied the Congressman's motion for return of the seized materials. Key Documents Markup of One Bill, Full Committee (December 14, at 421. The historical record utterly devoid of Executive searches of congressional offices suggests the imposition of such a burden will be, at most, infrequent. WebOffice Room Phone Committee Assignment; D'Esposito, Anthony: New York 4th : R : 1508 Speaker's Office Balcony Hallway It found no functional difference between compelling a Member to be questioned orally and compelling him to produce documents in response to a subpoena. The Capitol Subway System, an underground transportation system, connects the building to the Capitol. To go to Rayburn, you must take the escalator down to the Rayburn sub-basement. These services include adaptive tours of the Capitol building, wheelchair loans, and interpreting services for individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. Rayburn was completed in early 1965 and is home to the offices of 169 representatives. HVC-210 (Speaker's Hearing Room) The filter team would make similar determinations with respect to the data on the copied computer hard drives, following an initial electronic screening by the FBI's Computer Analysis and Response Team. As Gravel noted, his aide's privilege derives from the Member's. Brown & Williamson's non-disclosure rule, however, does not extend to criminal process. First St., and C St., S.W. The Rayburn House Office Building, completed in early 1965, is the third of three office buildings constructed for the United States House of Representatives. The design of the building is a modified H plan with four stories above ground, two basements, and three levels of underground garage space. 2018, 36 L.Ed.2d 912 (1973)), recognizing that the privilege is absolute once it attaches begs the question whether the Clause attaches to begin with.10 Significantly, in Brown & Williamson we expressly recognized that the Clause's testimonial privilege might be less stringently applied when inconsistent with a sovereign interest, such as the conduct of criminal proceedings. May 20-21, 2006 was the first time a sitting Member's congressional office has been searched by the Executive. As a result of the 2002 Amendments, Rule 41(e) now appears with minor stylistic changes as Rule 41(g). 310CHOB (Homeland Security Committee) The Clause provides that for any Speech or Debate in either House [t]he Senators and Representatives shall not be questioned in any other Place. U.S. Const. 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) 07-0209 (E.D. The question of whether the seized evidence must be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment is not before us. 78dd-2(a); Counts 12-14, Money Laundering, 18 U.S.C. 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). 2614, to the existence of criminal proceedings against persons other than Members of Congress at least suggest that the testimonial privilege might be less stringently applied when inconsistent with a sovereign interest. Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 419-20. 2154 RHOB (Oversight and Government Reform Committee) House Complex Live Locations | Radio TV Gallery art. The considerations voiced by our concurring colleague and the district court may demonstrate good faith by the Executive, but they fail to adhere to this court's interpretation of the scope of the testimonial privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause, much less to the Supreme Court's interpretation of what constitutes core legislative activities, see Brewster, 408 U.S. at 526, and the history of the Clause. Fax: (202) 225-0096, 2421 Rayburn House Office Building 2531. 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. 1 (emphases added). at 114. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681 (1966)-another criminal case-as arising from the use of evidence of a legislative act to support the indictment. at 659. Office Any questions should be directed to the administrators of this or any other specific sites. 210 CHOB (Budget Committee) Id. See Appellee's Br. at 418 (quoting MINPECO, 844 F.2d at 859). I, 6, cl. Having found probable cause to believe that Rep. Jefferson's congressional office contains property constituting evidence of the commission of bribery of a public official, wire fraud[,] bribery of a foreign official [and] conspiracy to commit these crimes and having issued a search warrant aimed solely at such evidence, see Warrant Aff. The Architect of the Capitol, J. George Stewart, with the approval of the House Office Building Commission, selected the firm of Harbeson, Hough, Livingston & Larson of Philadelphia to design a stripped-down classical building in architectural harmony with other Capitol Hill structures. In re Search of Rayburn House Ofice Bldg. 2020 RHOB 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. On this reading of the Clause, Rep. Jefferson remains subject to the same criminal process that applies to his constituents. There is no indication that the Executive did not act based on a good faith interpretation of the law, as reflected in the district court's prior approval and later defense of the special procedures set forth in the warrant affidavit. Id. The Congressman does not dispute that congressional offices are subject to the operation of the Fourth Amendment and thus subject to a search pursuant to a search warrant issued by the federal district court. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 703-04, 94 S.Ct. 2059 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Cf. Contact | Armed Services Republicans There are a variety of services available to people visiting the Capitol and to those visiting online. See, e.g., Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 416.4. The U.S. House of Representatives does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this third-party information. Its shield does not extend beyond what is necessary to preserve the integrity of the legislative process, Brewster, 408 U.S. at 517, and it does not prohibit inquiry into illegal conduct simply because it has some nexus to legislative functions, id. Remand Order of July 28, 2007. 2200 RHOB (Foreign Affairs Committee) WebThe Rayburn House Office Building, completed in early 1965, is the third of three office Today, Congressman Kevin McCarthy and Congressman David Schweikert (AZ-06) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requesting the FDA hold public workshops to help with the development of Valley Fever drugs and vaccines. See United States v. Rayburn House Office Bldg., Room 2113, No. Elm Tree Site (East Front) of Scott Palmer, Elliot S. Berke, and Reid Stuntz, and Philip Kiko (former senior congressional staffers) at 26. Further, the court noted, citing Eastland, 421 U.S. at 509, that when the privilege applies it is absolute. Rayburn House Office Building Id. P. 41(g). [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. 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. DC gets its first Steak n Shake (in an unusual location) See Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Williams, 62 F.3d 408, 420 (D.C.Cir.1995). Moreover, the FBI agents responsible for the search of Rep. Jefferson's congressional office went to great lengths to minimize disruption8 by, inter alia, executing the warrant when the Congress was not meeting, imaging computer hard drives rather than searching the computers, using specific search terms for both paper and electronic records and, most important, creating Filter Teams-one for paper records and one for electronic records-and ensuring subsequent in camera judicial review to minimize exposure to privileged records. Phone: 202-224-3121 In the same vein, the court indicated that the degree of disruption caused by probing into legislative acts is immaterial, id. 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. The Executive offers that the special procedures described in the warrant affidavit are more than sufficient to protect Rep[resentative] Jefferson's rights under the Clause, Appellee's Br. Longworth Lobby Stakeout West at 660. The FBI agents' execution of the warrant on Rep. Jefferson's congressional office did not require the latter to do anything and accordingly falls far short of the question[ing] the court in Brown & Williamson found was required of a Member in response to a civil subpoena. 1425, 18 L.Ed.2d 577 (1967)); see also Johnson, 383 U.S. at 179, 86 S.Ct. 1619, 48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976). Office The search of Congressman Jefferson's office must have resulted in the disclosure of legislative materials to agents of the Executive. See United States v. Rostenkowski, 59 F.3d 1291, 1296-1300 (D.C.Cir.1995). Committees Committee and Subcommittee Assignments. Id. 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. 3090, 41 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1974) (citing Speech or Debate Clause cases to illustrate judicial power to define scope of executive privilege); cf. Our concurring colleague takes much the same approach, failing to distinguish between the lawfulness of searching a congressional office pursuant to a search warrant and the lawfulness of the manner in which the search is executed in view of the protections afforded against compelled disclosure of legislative materials by the Speech or Debate Clause. Rayburn House Office Building - Wikipedia For the reasons stated, absent any claim of disruption of the congressional office by reason of lack of original versions, it is unnecessary to order the return of non-privileged materials as a further remedy for the violation of the Clause. See United States v. Dorcely, 454 F.3d 366, 375 (D.C.Cir.2006) (carefully considered language of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, generally must be treated as authoritative (quoting Sierra Club v. EPA, 322 F.3d 718, 724 (D.C.Cir.2003))). 5. We do not, however, hold, in the absence of a claim by the Congressman that the operations of his office have been disrupted as a result of not having the original versions of the non-privileged documents, that remedying the violation also requires the return of the non-privileged documents. See Rayburn, 432 F.Supp.2d at 111-12. at 37. See Appellant's Br. Capitol - Public tours enter through the Capitol Visitor Center; Official House business enters on the south side of the Capitol; Official Senate business enters on the north side of the Capitol.. Decided: August 03, 2007 Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and HENDERSON and ROGERS, Circuit Judges. 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. 2018, 2020, 167 L.Ed.2d 898 (2007); Johnson, 383 U.S. at 185 (With all references to [legislative material] eliminated [from the indictment], we think the Government should not be precluded from a new trial on this count, thus wholly purged of elements offensive to the Speech or Debate Clause.).