Being a Congressman prevents him

[Auld Phart]

from being handcuffed?

Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez allegedly handcuffed at ICE office

"Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., said he participated in a sit-in at the Chicago ICE headquarters after attending a meeting there.

"Federal police giving us our first warning that we risk arrest if we stay at Chicago ICE HQ," Gutierrez tweeted Monday.

"I was arrested, cuffed then cuffs were cut off. Waiting for further word on if/when we will be arrested," he said in a later tweet."

 

[saveliberty]

He seems a bit confused on whether he was arrested or not. Makes sense, he has a basic lack of understanding when it comes to legal and illegal.

 

[Fueri]

He's just mad because they're reducing his potential voting pool...

 

[depotoo]

He does have some protection while Congress is in session, but could his actions be considered a breach of the peace...


The Privilege from Arrest Clause provides a Member of Congress a privilege from civil arrest only, but not from other civil processes. Even the privilege from civil arrest would be valid only while Congress is in session.

Civil arrest is the physical detainment of a person, by lawful authority, to answer a civil demand against him. At the time the Constitution was adopted, civil arrests were common. Long v. Ansell (1934). The Framers likely feared this tool could be misused to interfere with the legislative process. Civil arrest is rarely, if ever, practiced, so this clause is virtually obsolete and has little application today.

The Supreme Court interpreted the language "in all Cases, except Treason, Felony, and Breach of the Peace" to encompass all crimes. Williamson v. United States (1908). Tracing the origins of the clause to parliamentary privilege, the Court found this identical language was used to qualify Parliament's privilege from arrest so that the members of Parliament were not immune from criminal prosecution. The Court concluded that the Framers' use of the identical phrase, without any explanation, indicated that Congress's privilege was to have the same limitation regarding criminal actions as did the parliamentary privilege from which the language was borrowed. The clause, therefore, does not provide Congress with any immunity from criminal prosecution.

The Supreme Court, applying the Framers' intent, later declared that the clause also did not provide any privilege from civil process. Long v. Ansell. Hence, civil litigants can compel Members of Congress to appear in a court of proper jurisdiction to defend against civil actions. Furthermore, the Court has so narrowly interpreted the clause that Members of Congress may even be compelled by subpoena to testify in criminal and civil actions while Congress is in session.
......

I learned something. I thought it only protected them on the Capitol grounds.