Slashdot Mirror
Undersized Grouper Case Lands In Supreme Court
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.
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?
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."
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.
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!
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."
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!
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...
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
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.