State District Judge Michael Vigil ruled Wednesday that items seized by investigators at the home and office of paving company owner Anthony Montoya were properly seized.

The judge rejected a motion to quash the search warrant and order the items returned.

The motion was filed by City Councilor Matthew Ortiz, attorney for the contractor at the center of an investigation into possible fraud in the Santa Fe County Public Works Department. Ortiz argued that the items should be returned because they were outside the parameters of the search warrant.

Ortiz also argued that some items — including about $56,000 of the $111,050 in cash taken from a safe in Montoya's home — belonged to Montoya's son, Nicholas, or wife, Marlene, and weren't related to the investigation into Advantage Asphalt and Seal Coating's dealings with the county.

Furthermore, Ortiz argued, his client needed some of the documents that were seized for use in an arbitration case involving Advantage Asphalt and owners of the Rancho Viejo subdivision.

Johanna Cox, senior trial attorney for the state, argued that the law doesn't require exact specificity when describing items that might be seized under a search warrant. She noted that authorities might need voluminous documents to prove allegations of crimes that could have been committed over a period of years and involve numerous projects.

Matters under investigation include suspicions that the contractor — who was awarded about $7 million worth of county contracts in the past two years — charged Santa Fe County for work performed by the county's own crews and failed to complete jobs to bid specifications.

Judge Vigil agreed that "search warrants are often very broad" in describing what investigators are looking for or need to take during a search, "especially in these types of financial crimes."

Vigil reminded Ortiz that the case was still in the investigative stages and, should criminal charges be filed, Ortiz could avail himself of other remedies, such as moving to suppress evidence gathered during the search. Vigil also noted that Ortiz could pursue civil action against Santa Fe County, something Ortiz said in a post-hearing statement that he plans to do.

The judge did order Ortiz to prepare a list of items his clients needed to conduct business or to participate in other litigation or arbitration, and to provide the list to the Sheriff's Office, which he ordered to review the list and return such items as were not needed in connection with a case against Montoya.

Vigil denied a request by Ortiz that his clients be allowed to view the evidence while compiling the list.

In a statement faxed to reporters Wednesday afternoon, Ortiz said he plans to file a tort claim notice alerting the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office that he would file a lawsuit against the agency for the "unlawful seizure" of more than $111,000 and a laptop computer that has gone missing during the course of the investigation, demanding that the money and the computer be returned.

"It is expected that the civil litigation to be filed will be lengthy and protracted," Ortiz wrote.

Contact Phaedra Haywood at 986-3068 or phaywood@sfnewmexican.com.