A fish tale: Supreme Court and the missing grouper

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-EXCITE

By SAM HANANEL

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared sympathetic to a Florida fisherman who says the government went overboard in prosecuting him for throwing undersized grouper off his boat.

But the justices seemed to struggle over how to limit the reach of a law meant to tackle corporate fraud in the wake of the Enron accounting scandal — not to dole out punishment over some discarded fish.

The court heard arguments in the case of John Yates, a fishing boat captain who claims he was wrongly convicted of destroying evidence — namely, the fish — that were under the legal minimum catch size in the Gulf of Mexico.

Critics have derided the case as a prime example of government overreach. The Obama administration says it is simply enforcing the plain language of a law that prohibits destruction of "any tangible object" during an investigation.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20141105/us--supreme-court-fish-story-1d2c5d4eb4.html

[cosmicone]

1. This is precisely what has been wrong with Obama

The justice department should have dropped this case a long time ago instead of wasting resources on it.

Obama would have been more popular had he gotten some bankers tried.

[yellowcanine]

2. I disagree. The law is the law.

If the law needs to be changed, go back to Congress and have it changed. Having SCOTUS change it would be the height of judicial activism.

[petronius]

3. Kind of a strange/unclear story, in a couple of ways

--- snip ---

The case started in 2007 when a Florida fish and wildlife officer inspected Yates' boat and discovered 72 grouper that appeared to be less than 20 inches long, the minimum length permitted by law. The officer ordered Yates to return to port so the fish could be seized.

But when the vessel arrived, the officer found only 69 undersized fish on board. The officer suspected these were not the same fish he had measured before. A crewmember later testified that Yates had ordered the undersized fish to be tossed overboard and replaced.

--- Snip ---

That makes it sound like he discarded the original undersized fish, and then obtained 69 new (yet still illegal fish) on the way back to port? Or if it was just 3 of the 72 that (they claim) he discarded, is 70 some sort of threshold in poaching prosecution? It would also seem that the officer could have photographed the illegal fish on that first contact, and/or seized a couple of them right there for evidence.

(And on googling, here's his side of the story.)

Sounds like a pretty lame prosecution: he should have been--and I hope he was--held accountable for the undersized fish he showed up in port with, but it would seem like there would be wildlife-related and commercial fishing laws/policies regarding discarding the fish that would have been more appropriate...