Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Undersized Grouper Case Lands In Supreme Court

Posted by samzenpus on from the ine-serious-fish-story dept.

An anonymous reader writes The Supremes have decided to hear a case regarding whether groupers are 'tangible articles' under the Sarbanes-Oxley law. The issue is that the crew of the Miss Katie was caught with undersized fish. A marine fisheries officer wrote them a ticket and put the fish in a box that the captain was ordered to turn in when he got ashore. Rather than do this, they threw out the undersized fish and replaced them with bigger ones. Prosecutors, rather than charging them with offenses of catching undersized fish (which would have resulted in a fine and a small jail sentence), went after them under the Sarbanes-Oxley law which forbids the destruction of "any record, document, or tangible object" and which could result in a 20 year prison sentence, though the prosecutor only asked for two years on this one. Lawyers are arguing over whether "tangible object" here is something that could contain records, or whether it's any object whatsoever that might be evidence. So far in comments, many of the conservative justices, including Roberts, Alito and Scalia, have expressed skepticism as to whether this would lead to overcriminalization for petty crimes and would give prosecutors undue leverage given all the things Sarbanes-Oxley can apply to. They also question whether this was intended in the law, given that "tangible object" was listed in a context including documents and records and appears to have been only contemplated in terms of servers, DVDs, or other tangible objects that might contain documents or records. Meanwhile, Kagan and Kennedy appear amenable to a more literal reading of the statute, given that groupers are in fact touchable and that makes them "tangible objects" under the ordinary meaning of those words.

23 of 251 comments (clear)

  1. If they're going literal.... by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they're going literal, then the groupers weren't destroyed. They were just placed in an indeterminate location. Hell, take it up a notch, and rely on the second law of thermodynamics.

    Stupidly vague laws resulting in legislative over-reach is one of many reasons the law is an ass.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    1. Re:If they're going literal.... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not vague, it's inclusive. They meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence in federal criminal investigations and that's what they did. Had they meant something different, they'd have chosen different words. The "strict constructionists" on the court are favoring the idea that the law doesn't mean exactly what it says, but some they're-going-to-define-it-for-us subset of what it says? This makes sense to you?

      Nevermind the consequences if they limit the meaning -- it will be legal to destroy most kinds of evidence in a criminal investigation. It's all A-OK if it didn't contain financial records right? Right?

    2. Re:If they're going literal.... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Funny

      Had they meant something different, they'd have chosen different words.

      I understand that ideal, but still does it seem there could be any possibility that the intelligent, polite, honest, upstanding lawmakers who sit in congress might have misunderstood the law they voted on? It is true that only the best and brightest make it to congress, but sometimes it's hard to think through all the implications of what they have (or have not, as the case may be) written?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:If they're going literal.... by LordLucless · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not vague, it's inclusive.

      Same thing. It's inclusive, by being vague.

      They meant to criminalize the destruction of evidence in federal criminal investigations and that's what they did.

      Yes, I'm sure that when they sat down to formulate legislative regulations on corporate finance records, they thoroughly intended that it be used for punishing fishermen who caught undersized fish.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    4. Re:If they're going literal.... by diamondmagic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A constitutionalist (you know, the supreme law of the land, the thing they all swore to uphold) would also notice that no part of the Constitution granted authority to do such a thing: An application of Sarbanes-Oxley needs to involve interstate commerce in some fashion.

      Fishing is distinctly intrastate commerce (if commerce at all!), and cannot be covered by federal law. Criminal law is supposed to be a state issue.

      The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution also requires "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." I doubt 20 years prison listed in the statute is ever warranted.

      --
      Wonder what the public key field is for?
    5. Re:If they're going literal.... by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Informative

      The interstate commerce clause is the most thoroughly raped portion of the constitutions imaginable

      If you are not familiar
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

      A farmer is prosecuted for growing wheat on his farm for use on his farm, on the grounds he should be forced to sell or buy on the broader market.

    6. Re:If they're going literal.... by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's not that simple. The /. "article" doesn't exactly provide a comprehensive restatement of the law. Here you go:

      Sec. 1519. Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy

      ``Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

      Notice that the law includes not only destruction, but concealing or covering up. So, the trial court didn't have the easy resolution you suggest, nor can the Supreme Court easily dismiss it on the basis that it isn't "destruction".

      --
      Join the IParty!
    7. Re:If they're going literal.... by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Funny

      It is true that only the best and brightest make it to congress

      How did you manage to type that with a straight face ? Or were you being sarcastic ?

      Sarcastic? Me?? Never!!! Congress of course is populated with geniuses, you can tell because of how well they explain complex topics like physics and how to transport things over the internet through tubes.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:If they're going literal.... by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 5, Informative
      Dude. You have no idea. The Supreme Court has held that a grandmother named "Angel" growing pot in her basement for her own personal consumption for medical purposes falls under the interstate commerce clause because it "affects" interstate commerce, and therefore she can be prosecuted under the federal law banning the possession of marijuana. In the Supreme Courts view, if she didn't grow it herself, she would have to buy it on the open market. Therefore, growing it affects interstate commerce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      It was not hard for the Supreme Court to decide this, since they had already decided that a farmer growing wheat on his own property for his own consumption could be regulated by the federal government under the interstate commerce clause. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Join the IParty!
    9. Re:If they're going literal.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Except, as the NPR article notes...

      Commercial fisherman John Yates and his crew were fishing for grouper in federal waters in

      Commercial fishing often results in the product being transported all over the country, and with the fishing being done over a variety of areas and jurisdictions - especially in border areas (no idea if that is the case here).

      20 years is definitely excessive for what they indicate would normally be the equivalent of a minor fine (like a speeding ticket). However, the article goes on to note that he was sentenced to 30 days. I'd still consider that to be excessive myself - but not outrageously so considering it was destruction of evidence, deliberate fraud for financial advantage, as well as likely refusing to comply with a relevant direct request from an appropriate deputized federal officer in the normal course of his duties.

      That said, continuing the bad analogies, if you're stopped for speeding, don't do burnouts and doughnuts in front of the police vehicle as you pull over - you're likely to find yourself in a lot more trouble than just the speeding ticket...

    10. Re:If they're going literal.... by Strangely+Familiar · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Sorry, I forgot to spell out the conclusion, for anyone wondering if this was off topic. Of course fishing falls under the interstate commerce clause, and the Supreme Court will have zero difficulty finding this to be so, because the fish can be sold on the interstate seafood market, just like wheat or pot. Even if the fisherman was eating the fish himself, the Supreme Court would not have trouble under it's own precedent finding federal jurisdiction over the matter. I personally don't think the Supreme Court is right about this, but there is little doubt that the Supreme Court will use these precedents to find that the Feds have jurisdiction over fishing.

      This kind of Federal overreach could be overturned by a Supreme Court decision, but that is unlikely. The only real hope is a constitutional amendment limiting the interstate commerce clause.

      --
      Join the IParty!
    11. Re:If they're going literal.... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      If they're going literal, then the groupers weren't destroyed. They were just placed in an indeterminate location.

      On the plus side, the fishermen got an extremely precise reading on the groupers' momentum.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    12. Re:If they're going literal.... by silentcoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Honestly - I can still partially forgive those, it's specialized technical knowledge. In theory those who would regulate something should damn well get educated about it first, but people outside those fields usually won't have a complete understanding of them.

      I get more upset by the ones who want to regulate things like sex and female reproductive issues while having absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Todd Aiken who seems to think that falopian tubes can tell whether a woman consented or not, or the congresswoman who thought a rape-kit is something that emergency rooms use to undo the act of rape !
      Apparently she has never read a news story, or watched a crime show.

      Not knowing specialized technical information is forgivable (at least - if your NOT actively regulating it) but not knowing basic general knowledge about something you hold that much opinion about - that's unforgiveable, especially in those who have the power to propose their opinions as laws.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    13. Re:If they're going literal.... by BradMajors · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The SEC hasn't used false certification against executives from any of the major banks suspected of misleading the public about their finances during the crisis."

      Apparently the law was intended to be used against fishermen and not CEOs of banks.

    14. Re:If they're going literal.... by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously, though, it's not even a matter of Congress misunderstanding the law. It's a matter of the prosecutors (and even more scarily the courts) completely subverting the law through overly literal interpretation.

      Though what disturbs me the most about this is that it may be the first non-unanimous Supreme Court decision in my lifetime where I 100% agree with the "conservative judges."

      Seems like the prosecutors could have gone with a good old "destruction of evidence" and not had to delve into Sarbanes-Oxley (which while having many good intentions is in so many ways a totally fucked up law that has made billions for a few financial and auditing consulting companies and cost tens of billions for the rest.)

    15. Re:If they're going literal.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      If no one has raised objections to proposed laws, how can you expect the politicians to?

      Right, and if you don't tow your own vehicle out of the ditch, how do you expect the tow truck guy to do it? If you don't cook your own meal, how do you expect the chef to do it? Oh, right, it's their fucking job.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:If they're going literal.... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah. Screwup by the fisheries officer. If he had secured the box with some sort of official "evidence" tape to make it tamperproof, this never would have gotten to this point. Seal the box, get the signature of the accused testifying that they have the sealed box, and it's ok to leave it in their possession until they get to shore. (Most of these fisheries enforcement officers work in small/medium high-speed power boats, so it would be impractical for them to take aboard all the illegal fish they find for safekeeping as evidence.)

      However, in this case they have the testimony of the crew that the captain ordered them to throw out the (purportedly) undersized fish. So I think the Feds are still going to win based on that. It's not solely the officer's word that a crime was committed.

    17. Re:If they're going literal.... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An "outlandish claim" that was proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, in a fair trial. Mostly because the guy who actually threw the fish out of the boat testified that he was ordered to do so by the captain.

      Nobody with a brain in their heads is claiming this guy did not deserve to get in trouble for what he did. They're claiming that the government charged him under the wrong statute.

    18. Re:If they're going literal.... by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nevermind the consequences if they limit the meaning -- it will be legal to destroy most kinds of evidence in a criminal investigation. It's all A-OK if it didn't contain financial records right?

      This story seems to mix up the traditional concept of destruction-of-evidence with a very specific subset of that crime applicable under SOX.

      The prosecutors simply went too far in pushing for that specific crime, and therein lies the abuse - No different than how they try to make every case of plain ol' traditional fraud into a federal "wire fraud" offense when it involves the use of a computer (ie, basically all of it in the modern world), or how any crime involving more than a single person qualifies under RICO, or to pick a golden oldie, nailing Al Capone for tax fraud. Might what the crew did technically count under SOX? Maybe, maybe not - But SOX doesn't exist to serve as a bigger stick in all situations; it exists specifically to prosecute otherwise difficult to prove "white collar" crimes where most non-accountants can't even comprehend who did what to whom.

      Prosecutors need to stick with the crime that actually happened here, punish the crew appropriately, and lose the "get creative with charges and see what sticks" bullshit that has become far, far too common in today's legal system. When the law becomes nothing more than a set of technicalities to use to punish dissidence as their whim, do we really wonder why no one actually respects the law anymore?

    19. Re:If they're going literal.... by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

      So then, to be in complete compliance with eSOX, the boats crews will need to have segregated duties. Owners aren't allowed on the boats. Captains can't fish and the the crews can't drive the boat. The guy who baits the hooks or deploys the nets isn't allowed to pull them in.

      After all, we need complete segregation of duties.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. So don't destroy evidence by penguinoid · · Score: 4, Informative

    There was a bug with the fish, so they had to be refreshed. They were of the wrong scale. You can check the logs, those are in the forest. Yes, that sounds fishy but that's to be expected given the circumstances.

    Eh, about as credible as "my harddrive crashed and all backups are for mysterious reasons unavailable". I have no sympathy for those who destroy evidence because they think it will be better for them at the trial.

    --
    Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  3. Overreach... by David_Hart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Everyone knows this is an overreach by the prosecutor and an abuse of the very intent of the law. All the Judges need to do is read up on the history of what lead to it's creation to understand that it was developed purely as a way to ensure that publicly traded corporations weren't reporting fictional financial statements. There is no way that this should have EVER reached the Supreme court, let alone this fisherman being convicted under this law. But, of course, we now have a legal system that prizes conviction over justice.

    I also love the argument for why this conviction should be upheld. "The government replies that the "records only" argument would make it a crime for a murderer to destroy his victim's diary, but not the murder weapon." Um... The destruction of evidence to cover up a crime is already against the law (Tampering, Obstruction, etc.). Saying that the Sarbanes-Oxley law is needed for this is just plain silly..... I guess it's a good thing that I am not a Supreme court justice. If I were I would have laughed my head off at the pure stupidity...

    FYI: I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV... The above are my personal opinions...

  4. Fisherman charged with lieing about the size by Crashmarik · · Score: 4, Funny

    of his fish.

    Next week: 7 supreme court justices die of laughter when presented with the case.