Opinion ID: 1311035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cy H. Rott's testimony.

Text: Defendant takes the position that any adverse testimony to be elicited from the owner of the apartment, Cy H. Rott, should be suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search. It is unclear whether this argument questions the validity of the search conducted pursuant to the search warrant or, on the other hand, challenges the evidence obtained through the alleged theft of the sample substance by the informant's brother-in-law. These arguments of the defendant are not persuasive in either regard. As to the first proposition, we have held that the complaint for the search warrant was sufficient on its face to support the issuance of the warrant and the subsequent showing of the informant's misrepresentation was immaterial insofar as it might require suppression of the evidence obtained. Therefore, any adverse testimony elicited from Rott would not be tainted by reason of the search conducted pursuant to the warrant. The trial court inferred that the suppression of Rott's testimony was sought on the ground that the sample substance had been obtained via an illegal search by the informant's brother-in-law. The trial court concluded that such alleged violation could not support suppression of the testimony. The trial court was correct in this respect. Absolutely no showing was made that the informant's brother-in-law was in any sense acting as an agent of the state when the alleged theft took place. The informant's uncontradicted testimony established that he had never solicited or suggested to anyone that illegal substances be stolen from the apartment. Under these circumstances, the defendant's challenge to Rott's adverse testimony as being tainted by the brother-in-law's alleged theft is without support. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.