Evidence vs Stanley suppressed

Former congressman Stanley Torres scored a minor victory yesterday in the criminal case he is facing, after the Superior Court agreed to suppress evidence obtained from the lawmaker’s office during two instances of warrantless searches and seizures.

But the battle is not yet over for Torres. Yesterday, he also asked the court to suppress additional evidence obtained without a warrant before Dec. 11, 2003, revealing that investigators from the Office of the Public Auditor allegedly conducted warrantless searches before the raids on Dec. 11, 2003 and Feb. 25, 2004.

Associate judge Juan T. Lizama handed down the ruling that suppressed the evidence seized from the raids after deputy attorney general Clyde Lemons Jr. conceded earlier that they should be suppressed.

The judge has yet to rule on whether the suppressed evidence could be used to impeach witnesses’ credibility in the future. Lemons had asked the court that the suppressed evidence be allowed for impeachment purposes.

Torres’ lawyer, former attorney general Robert Torres, disclosed that OPA investigators had obtained materials pertaining to their investigation of the congressman from government employees and records.

“OPA investigator [Richard] Lamkin admitted, for the first time, that there were additional materials that he and other OPA investigators had culled from government employees and records obtained without the aid of a warrant, without the benefit of a request under the Open Government Act, without notice to or the consent of Mr. Torres, and without the authorization and notice afforded by a subpoena,” Robert Torres said.

“Without a warrant, a subpoena, or even a request for information under the Open Government Act, the public auditor also gained access to the Department of Finance travel section’s computer to check travel authorizations for legislative employees and travel records,” he added.

He said the searches were aimed at obtaining legislative personnel records, time and attendance sheets and financial records of employees working at the congressman’s office, legislative contracts and confidential financial data from the Northern Mariana Islands Retirement Fund.

He said evidence obtained from the allegedly unlawful searches should also be suppressed.

“The OPA is not a law enforcement agency empowered to conduct searches,” he said. “OPA has no authority to conduct searches with or without a warrant.”

He said that, while the OPA is authorized to conduct audits and investigations, no statutory provision authorizes the public auditor to conduct a search. He also said that the OPA did not comply with the procedure outlined by the Government Ethics Code by failing to transmit a copy of a complaint against the congressman to the Legislature’s standing committee that has jurisdiction over the complaints.

The former lawmaker and co-defendant Dorothy Sablan, who used to be the lawmaker’s office manager, are facing multiple charges of conspiracy to commit theft, conspiracy to commit theft by deception, and illegal use of public supplies, services, time and personnel.