Ruling likely to affect graft case

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments in March on a case that could affect the public-corruption indictment of Maryland’s state police superintendent.

The federal law that’s being challenged, often referred to as Section 666 after its number in the U.S. Code, allows federal prosecutors to investigate corruption in state and local agencies that have received more than $10,000 in federal aid.

But the law does not limit federal jurisdiction to the specific use of the grant money, which critics say allows prosecutors to probe cases unrelated to how the federal money was spent. That, they say, means federal prosecutors can overstep their bounds in a violation of states’ rights.

“It creates an unhealthy concentration of policing power at the federal level,” said Joshua Dratel, a member of the board of directors for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

The group has filed a brief on behalf of the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case.

The increasing use of the law also is clogging federal courts and creating backlogs, Mr. Dratel said.

But supporters say state and local prosecutors often don’t have the resources to pursue cases against public officials. Local prosecutors also can face local political repercussions that federal prosecutors don’t have to worry about.

“They just don’t do it as well” as federal prosecutors, said Adam Kurland, a law professor at Howard University and a former federal prosecutor. “I, personally, don’t have a problem with the federal government prosecuting appropriate state and local government cases.”

Maryland State Prosecutor Stephen Montanarelli investigates misconduct by public officials and employees, including violations of election laws and misconduct in office. But he said he wasn’t bothered by the decision of Maryland U.S. Attorney Thomas DiBiagio to prosecute State Police Superintendent Edward Norris.

“I see that something is being done about a situation that needs to be corrected, and if the federal prosecutor may be stretching his jurisdiction — but he’s getting the job done — that’s fine with me,” Mr. Montanarelli said.

Mr. Norris and his former chief of staff at the Baltimore Police Department are accused of misusing about $20,000 from an off-the-books fund.

The indictment said Mr. Norris spent the money on travel, lavish meals and extramarital affairs when he was the head of the city police.

On Dec. 10, the day the indictment was announced, Mr. DiBiagio said it was consistent with a proposition that has guided federal prosecutors in Maryland for at least 50 years: “Justice without fear or favor.”

“If a police commissioner repeatedly lies, cheats and steals and we look the other way while at the same time prosecuting individuals … who steal from other people, what message does that send to the public about the quality of justice in the federal courthouse in Maryland?” he said.

The indictment cited Section 666 as the federal “nexus” or connection to the case.

“I think that the law is very clear that if a governmental agency receives federal funds and there’s corruption within that agency, 666 was definitely aimed at addressing theft or fraud involving that agency,” Mr. DiBiagio said in announcing the indictments.

He also said some of the money in the fund was used for programs that directly received federal funds. “So here, we have a very close tie between the fund and federal funds and federal programs,” Mr. DiBiagio said.

Use of the 666 statute has been gaining momentum since it was enacted in 1984, said George Brown, a Boston College law professor who is an expert on the statute. It was drafted to protect federal money by extending bribery prohibitions to state and local officials working for agencies that receive federal dollars.

For a while, Mr. Brown said, prosecutors were uncertain about the statute and relied on more-traditional legal tools such as wire and mail-fraud statutes. But as prosecutors began to realize the seemingly broad applications of Section 666, they started making more use of it, Mr. Brown said.

“If the Federal Program Bribery Statute has been transformed into the National Anticorruption Statute, I think that’s a serious development that has happened without congressional action,” Mr. Brown said.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on March 3 in the Section 666 case. It’s being challenged by Minnesota real-estate developer Basim Omar Sabri, who was charged with trying to bribe a Minneapolis City Council member in 2001.

He contends the law is unconstitutional because it does not require the government to prove a connection between the offenses and federal money. Without that connection, he has contended, the law falls outside of the legislative power of Congress.

A district court agreed with Mr. Sabri and dismissed the indictment. But the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, saying the U.S. Supreme Court “has twice indicated that the statute can be constitutional as applied.”

However, federal appellate Judge Kermit Bye dissented, arguing that the law “punishes a broad swath of conduct bearing little relationship to any federal interest.”

“The real-world effects are truly startling,” Judge Bye wrote. “It is now a federal crime for an auto mechanic to induce a public high-school principal to hire him to teach shop class by offering free car repair.”

Mr. Norris, 43, resigned as head of the Maryland State Police hours after his indictment was unsealed.

David Irwin, a lawyer representing Mr. Norris, said U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett set Mr. Norris’ trial for June 28 with the Supreme Court case in mind.

“We’re hoping the decision comes down by the end of the court’s term, before they go on summer recess, and that would be before the trial,” Mr. Irwin said.