On the back of a t-shirt they sell at the National Criminal Defense College in Macon, it says “I plead guilty to obstruction of injustice.”  It’s what criminal defense lawyers find inspirational, but of course depends on which side of the fence makes you feel more comfortable. 

The play on words relates to obstruction of justice, a curious charge given that law enforcement reserves the right to define justice to itself. Literally, as Brunswick, Georgia City Commissioner James Henry Brooks found out when he offered his distant relatives a reminder that they might want to avail themselves of their constitutional rights. Via CNN :

The arrest stemmed from a verbal exchange between Brunswick City Commissioner James Henry Brooks and the family of one of the teen suspects in the slaying during the suspects’ first court appearance on Monday.

According to his attorney, Brooks told the family of De’Marquise Elkins, 17, that they didn’t have to talk to police.

“What he was trying to do, at the point and time that he was approached here at the courthouse, was just tell these folks you have a right to remain silent,” Brooks’ attorney Alan Tucker told reporters Friday.

This bit of sedition bought Brooks an arrest for obstruction.  Some people think that swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution ought to mean something. Others see it as just another crime in the making.

The underlying case is quite terrible, and the police no doubt would love to have some quiet time with the two young men they believe did it.

The child’s mother, Sherry West, has said that two teenagers came up to her in the street in broad daylight. One pointed a gun at her and told her that if she didn’t give him her money he would shoot her and shoot her baby.

West said that the teen fired at her, hitting her in one leg and barely missing her head. The teen, she said, then shot her baby in the face.

The police arrested 17-year-old De’Marquise Elkins and 15-year-old Dominique Lang for the crime. Other family members have also been arrested for hindering the investigation and tampering with evidence. The police want this two kids bad.

Brooks was released on $5000 bail for obstructing justice with the Constitution, and subject to a very disturbing condition as well.

Under the terms of his bond, Brooks is not allowed to have any contact with the victims, witnesses, potential witnesses or investigators involved in the investigation of the murder of 13-month-old Antonio Santiago, who was killed March 21.

While it’s normal for someone to be required to have no contact with victims, where the victims fear being harassed or potentially harmed, the idea that he’s forbidden from speaking to anyone else, who doesn’t have a concern about contact, is a direct affront to Brooks’ constitutional rights, not to mention what appears to be a judicially endorsed effort to prevent witnesses of learning that they are under no obligation to cooperate with the police against their will.

As is so often the case, when a terrible crime occurs, concern for the Constitution is proportionately reduced.  The primary law enforcement concern is that nothing interfere with their collection of evidence to convict whoever they’ve decided is guilty.  As much as this is wrong, this is how the police have long perceived their job. They’re responsibility is to catch and convict the bad guys. It’s the lawyers’ and court’s job to worry about constitutional rights.

That the courts are complicit in the police efforts, on the other hand, by sanctioning Brooks’ arrest and silencing him so that he never again utters a constitutional right to others, can’t be explained. At least not legitimately.