Free Discretion by Allison Leotta Page A

Ever. Only items that have no relation to the legislative process can be seen by the police.”
    “Mr. Davenport’s process could take weeks,” Anna said, “even months, before we would get evidence we are entitled to. Your Honor knows how important the first forty-eight hours are in a homicide investigation. Jefferson was a public corruption case without the same exigencies as a homicide case. We propose to set up a filter team, of police officers unaffiliated with the prosecution, to take the first look at the papers in the Congressman’s office. Documents that relate solely to legislative acts will be returned to the Congressman.Those that do not, and which might relate to the crime, will be immediately turned over to the prosecution. Anything ambiguous will be submitted to Your Honor for review.”
    Davenport said, “Your Honor, the government suggests the same process rejected by the D.C. Circuit in Jefferson. Congressman Lionel is shocked and saddened that a woman died by falling from a balcony attached to his office. But I am equally shocked and saddened that a government lawyer would use that tragic death to propose a process that has been found to be unconstitutional.”
    “How important is this, Ms. Curtis?” the judge asked. “This isn’t a bribery case, or a pay-to-play scheme, where evidence of the crime would more likely be written. What do you expect to find in the Congressman’s papers?”
    “There could be notes related to the victim or where she worked. An appointment in a calendar. A business card from the escort agency. Written reference to the agency’s location or phone number.”
    The judge leaned back in her chair and studied the ceiling. Then she returned to her usual straight-backed posture and shook her head. “I appreciate your arguments, Ms. Curtis. A homicide case is a different creature than a public corruption investigation. But I’m not going to disagree with the Jefferson case. The Congressman may take the first pass through the items to be searched and pull out any legislative materials.”
    “Thank you, Your Honor,” Davenport said.
    It was a blow, but not unexpected. Lionel’s people could significantly delay when Anna got to see incriminating documents by claiming they related to his “legislative process.” The judge would double-check their work, but she wouldn’t necessarily know what to look for, and her review could take weeks, depending on the volume of materials Lionel dumped on her. Anna wouldn’t even have a chance to argue that the papers weren’t legislative—she’d never even see them. This was a huge disadvantage in investigating a sitting congressman. If Lionel were a car salesman, they’d be able to search everything in his office right now.
    “There’s one final matter,” Davenport said. “I’ve learned that the prosecutors requested the Capitol Police to pull the securityvideotape throughout the Capitol from last night. We move to squash that request.”
    “On what grounds?” the judge asked.
    “Again, Speech or Debate. The security videos capture the movement and meetings of 435 members of the House, five nonvoting delegates like Congressman Lionel, and a hundred senators, not to mention their staffs. They reflect meetings with constituents, lobbyists, and members of the press. The videos reveal who attended meetings with whom, and for how long, in the U.S. Capitol itself. These are core legislative acts that cannot be exposed to the Executive Branch.”
    Anna was alarmed. “Those videotapes are essential to the homicide investigation,” she said. “The whole case might be solved with them. And the meeting in Congressman Lionel’s hideaway last night was hardly legislative in nature.” She felt the same anger she had last night, when all of the Congressman’s staffers refused to talk to them. It offended her sense of public service that an elected official would impede a criminal investigation, even an investigation of