context: . The Government argues that even if the execution of the search warrant impermissi-bly intruded on legislative activity, the careful procedures established by the Government here are sufficient to protect Congressman Jefferson from suffering any prejudice. The Court finds that a harmless-error analysis is not appropriate in the context of the Speech or Debate privilege.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 62 F.3d 419, 419
citation_a.parenthetical: The degree of disruption [of the legislative process] is immaterial .... any probing of legislative acts is sufficient to trigger the immunity.
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Swindall, 971 F.2d 1531, 1548 n. 21 (11th Cir.1992) (a harmless-error analysis will not excuse a violation [of the Speech or Debate Clause]); cf. Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 419 (The degree of disruption [of the legislative process] is immaterial .... any probing of legislative acts is sufficient to trigger the immunity.) (emphasis in original). Here, there was no intrusion into legitimate legislative activity, as the search warrant sought only non-privileged material, and the Congressman was not compelled to provide any testimony as to his legitimate legislative activity.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: a harmless-error analysis will not excuse a violation [of the Speech or Debate Clause]
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Swindall, 971 F.2d 1531, 1548 n. 21 (11th Cir.1992) (a harmless-error analysis will not excuse a violation [of the Speech or Debate Clause]); cf. Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 419 (The degree of disruption [of the legislative process] is immaterial .... any probing of legislative acts is sufficient to trigger the immunity.) (emphasis in original). Here, there was no intrusion into legitimate legislative activity, as the search warrant sought only non-privileged material, and the Congressman was not compelled to provide any testimony as to his legitimate legislative activity.