JURIST - Paper Chase: Saturday, July 11, 2009

[JURIST] Pakistan has completed its probe into in last November's terror attacks in Mumbai [BBC backgrounder; JURIST news archive] and will likely begin trying next week five men arrested in connection with the attacks, Pakistan's Minister of the Interior Rehman Malik [official profile] announced Saturday. Malik named [IANS report] Zaki-ur-Rahman Lahkvi [Global Jihad profile], one of the men to stand trial, as the commander in the attacks. Lahkvi is the head of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) [CFR backgrounder], the group suspected of planning and coordinating the attacks. Malik praised Pakistani investigators [APP report] for the speed with which they conducted the investigation. India has accused Pakistan of proceeding too slowly in its investigation, but Malik asserted that if either country was acting too slowly it was India. Thirteen other men were announced as proclaimed offenders by Malik for their roles in the terror attacks, and Malik urged Pakistanis to help find these men so they could be tried.

In June, India issued an arrest warrant [JURIST report] for Lahkvi, but Pakistan announced it would not hand over [IANS report] any of its citizens and would try them in Pakistan. In May, Pakistani citizen Mohammed Ajmal Kasab pleaded not guilty [JURIST report] to involvement with the Mumbai attacks. Two Indian defendants linked to LeT also pleaded not guilty [AFP report] to conspiracy charges related to the charges against Kasab. In February, Pakistani officials conceded [JURIST report] that the attacks were partially planned in their country. Pakistan also stated that the perpetrators traveled by ship [NYT report] from southern Pakistan to Mumbai, where they launched the attack from inflatable boats using outboard engines purchased in Karachi, Pakistan. One scholar suggested that an international tribunal be formed [JURIST op-ed] to prosecute persons involved in Mumbai attacks in order to avoid further complications to the already unstable relationship between Pakistan and India. The attacks in Mumbai, which claimed at least 170 lives, were carried out at ten locations across the city including the landmark Taj Mahal Palace hotel.

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit [official website] ruled [opinion, PDF] Friday a neighborhood motorist checkpoint program unconstitutionally violated plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment [text] rights. The court overturned a ruling by the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website], applying precedent from the Supreme Court's decision in City of Indianapolis v. Edmond [text]. In Edmonds, the police sought to deter uncommitted crimes:

the primary purpose of the Indianapolis checkpoint program [was] ultimately indistinguishable from the general interest in crime control, the checkpoints violate the Fourth Amendment. ... It is this rule which governs the present case, and as the purpose of the [neighborhood safety zone] checkpoint program is not immediately distinguishable from the general interest in crime control, appellants' argument that the seizures were unconstitutional appears headed for ultimate victory.

The court concluded that for this reason, the harm to appellants was evident and that the appellants had a compelling case that there was a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. DC District Attorney Peter Nickles [official profile] has said that the city will appeal [ABC video] the decision, while Police Chief Cathy Lanier [official profile] issued a statement [text] saying that the department did not attempt to circumvent the constitution in doing what they considered was appropriate for the situation.

The lower court decision had denied the four plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin future implementation of Metropolitan Police Department Special Order 08-06, which, in June 2008, established a police Neighborhood Safety Zone (NSZ) program that was implemented for two periods of time in the Trinidad neighborhood of DC. Eleven checkpoints were set up to control incoming motorists from coming into the neighborhood unless they met approved category requirements that entailed proving their address in the neighborhood or reasons for entering. The original lawsuit was brought by four plaintiffs who were denied entrance into the neighborhood during the first implementation. The case was brought on behalf of the plaintiffs by the Partnership for Civil Justice [advocacy website].

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit [official website] announced [opinion, PDF] Thursday that prosecutors cannot subpoena statements made by a former congressman to the US House of Representatives Ethics Committee [official website], unsealing [order, PDF] a June 23 opinion. In overturning the lower court's ruling, the court ruled that the Constitution's Speech and Debate Clause [Article I, Section 6 text], which states that "for any speech or debate in either House, [Congresspersons] shall not be questioned in any other place," precludes prosecutors from using statements made by former US congressman Tom Feeney (R-FL) [campaign website] before the Ethics Committee in a criminal investigation. At issue are a number of statements and documents produced for the Committee by Feeney while he was under investigation by the committee for taking a trip to Scotland allegedly paid for by former lobbyist Jack Abramoff [JURIST news archive]. Attorneys for the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website] attempted to subpoena those statements and documents, but the ruling quashed the subpoena. In a concurring opinion, Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh called for an en banc rehearing to clarify the court's position on the Speech and Debate Clause.

Feeney failed to retain his seat in the House [AP report], losing in last year's election as his Democrat challenger emphasized Feeney's ties to the jailed Abramoff. The DOJ began investigating Feeney after he admitted to the House Ethics Committee he could not be sure who paid for his 2003 trip to Scotland. The Committee determined that by taking the trip Feeney had violated House Rules [Washington Times report], and Feeney paid $5,643 to the US Treasury. Feeney originally contacted the Ethics Committee after media reports indicated that Abramoff had paid for the trip.