State v. Anonymous (1977-8)

• Decision Date: 01 January 1977
• Citation: 34 Conn.Supp. 104,379 A.2d 946
• Court: Connecticut Circuit Court

DAVID M. SHEA, Judge.

In each case the defendant has moved to suppress the evidence obtained by the police as a result of the execution of a search warrant on premises occupied by the defendants. Various grounds for suppression are mentioned in the motion, but the only one which is sufficiently meritorious to warrant discussion is the claim that the search was the result of an unlawful seizure of a quantity of cocaine by an informer who had stolen this contraband from the home of the defendants and turned it over to the police. There had been several contacts between the state police and the informer over a period of about four months. At each of those contacts the police would be told of various activities of the defendants. The informer was not being paid by the police, however, nor was any other consideration proffered as an inducement. It appears from the affidavit submitted with the search warrant application that the substance received from the informer was sent to the state laboratory for analysis and was found to be cocaine of a relatively pure quality. Those facts as recited in the affidavit were unquestionably of great significance to the judge who issued the search warrant.

Despite the absence of any exception in the language of the fourth amendment ban on illegal searches and seizures, the constitutional prohibition consistently has been deemed to apply only to actions of governmental authorities, and evidence illegally seized by private individuals has been available for use in criminal prosecutions regardless of the unlawfulness of its source. Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048. The evidence must come to the state upon a "silver platter," however, and not as the result of any instigation by state officials or participation by them in the illegal activities. Byars v. United States, 273 U.S. 28, 33, 47 S.Ct. 248, 71 L.Ed. 520.

In the present case it appears that the state police had been in contact with the informer for some time before the theft of the cocaine occurred. The informer had been encouraged to continue his surveillance of the activities of the defendants and to furnish such information as he might acquire. There is no indication that the police suggested that the informer take anything from the home of the defendants. Obviously, they must have realized that the substance handed to them by the informer had been stolen from the defendants.

There can be no question but that an express request or...