State v. Traas

• Decision Date: 16 March 1977
• Docket Number: 76-601,Nos. 76-600,s. 76-600
• Citation: 343 So.2d 1294
• Parties: STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Terry TRAAS, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1294

343 So.2d 1294

STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Terry TRAAS, Appellee.

Nos. 76-600, 76-601.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 16, 1977.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1977.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and C. Marie King, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellant.

James D. Eckert, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

McNULTY, Acting Chief Judge.

Only one point merits discussion in the state's consolidated interlocutory appeals herein, and that relating to an order suppressing certain evidence. We think the point is well taken and reverse the order to suppress.

Appellee Traas was employed as a nurse in Operation P.A.R., a facility receiving federal-grant funds for the treatment of patients with heroin addiction. John Raleigh, a confidential informant, was a bona fide patient at Operation P.A.R. receiving methadone for his heroin habit. He testified that he was commissioned as an undercover informant for work 'on the street' and at the time of such commission neither he nor the police who hired him knew of any illegal involvement with narcotics by anyone employed in P.A.R.

Eventually, Raleigh suspected that Traas was involved illegally in narcotics and reported his suspicions and observations to the police. A buy was ultimately set up and consummated on August 6, 1975, at Traas' home, giving rise to the single transaction charges of sale and possession in the instant case.

Traas' principal contention in the motion to suppress filed below, apparently agreed to by the trial judge, was that since Operation P.A.R. was a federally funded narcotics treatment center, and because the regulations of the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, pursuant to the Drug Abuse Office and Treatment Act of 1972 ¹ prohibit enrollment of an undercover agent or informant in any drug abuse treatment 'program' without court order (the fact here), ² the information obtained through the informant Raleigh was illegally obtained. Thus, she argues, under the 'poison fruit' doctrine ³ the evidence obtained herein during the ensuing alleged sale charged was tainted. We can't agree.

In the first place, the 'poison fruit' doctrine presupposes wrongful acts of the police. Here, Raleigh was a paid 'street informant', not hired to spy or inform regarding illegal narcotic activity within P.A.R. Neither he nor the police who recruited him were aware of any such illegal activity. When he found out about the possibility of such activity he then informed his employers. Such information was neither solicited nor anticipated. To that point, therefore, the police had done no wrong. If they did any wrong thereafter, assuming the validity of the argument that Federal Regulations precluded as unlawful an undercover agent within the 'program', it was in not 'de-commissioning' Raleigh. In any event, that 'wrong'...