ANCHORAGE - A magistrate judge rejected a request to throw out evidence obtained in a search of former state Rep. Vic Kohring's legislative office, finding that the search by FBI agents was lawful.
|
|
|
Sound off on the important issues at
|
Kohring, a Republican from Wasilla, is facing an upcoming corruption trial scheduled to begin Oct. 22. He is charged with four felonies, including bribery, extortion and conspiracy.
He is accused of accepting cash payments from VECO Corp. executives totaling more than $2,000, soliciting $17,000 to pay off credit card debt, and securing an internship for a nephew. In exchange, prosecutors assert, he pushed VECO's interests on an oil tax bill in 2006.
The decision on whether to throw out the evidence ultimately rests with U.S. District Judge John Sedwick, who likely will issue his ruling next week.
The search was conducted at Kohring's legislative office in Wasilla on Aug. 31, 2006. That was the same day FBI agents raided some 20 locations around the state, including the offices of six legislators.
Kohring gave his consent, according to testimony from FBI agents at a hearing last month.
However, Kohring's lawyer, John Henry Browne of Seattle, argued that the search was no good. He contended that Kohring was forced into agreeing after an agent told him that the FBI had a warrant and would just execute it if he refused.
FBI agents testified at a Sept. 17 hearing that Kohring took about an hour before agreeing to the search. They acknowledged they told him that if he gave his consent, it might minimize attention from news reporters and that he could in any event issue a statement saying he was cooperating.
"Mr. Kohring well understood the choice he was being given regarding the execution of the search and he took full advantage of that when he made his press release later that day by indicating his cooperation with the agents," Magistrate Judge John D. Roberts wrote in his report, filed on Friday.
After the agents testified, Browne dropped his effort to throw out Kohring's statement on a different basis, that Kohring was illegally detained and not read his rights. The agents said he was free to go at any time.
Roberts believes the search was legal because agents had a warrant that they were prepared to execute on the spot.
Browne said Friday it won't be a big deal if the judge follows the recommendation and allows the evidence.
"My opinion is that Mr. Kohring didn't say anything incriminating to begin with," he said. "But I was just filing the motions in order to be a good lawyer and to make a record because I think what the government did when they told him 'You give us consent or we'll use the search warrant' is not legal."
