Ruilova v. State
125 So. 3d 991
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Temple Terrace PD received an anonymous tip that Frank Ruilova was obtaining oxycodone by fraud and sent fax inquiries to ~100 pharmacies; 24 pharmacies reported prescriptions filled for Ruilova from multiple doctors.
- A detective then called doctors’ offices and asked whether Ruilova was a patient, whether the doctor had prescribed oxycodone, and whether the doctor would have prescribed had they known about prescriptions from other physicians.
- Ruilova moved to suppress the information obtained from the pharmacies and the hearsay from the doctors’ offices; the trial court denied the motion.
- Ruilova pleaded guilty while expressly reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling; the State stipulated the suppression ruling was dispositive.
- This court followed Mullis v. State, holding pharmacy-record inquiries lawful but telephone questioning of doctors’ offices (and asking their opinion about prescribing decisions) impermissible. The court affirmed the convictions but recognized an error in the suppression ruling requiring limited remedial relief on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Ruilova’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of obtaining pharmacy records | Pharmacy-record inquiries violated privacy/statutory procedure | Pharmacy responses were lawfully obtained | Court approved obtaining pharmacy information (consistent with Mullis) |
| Lawfulness of detective’s telephone calls to doctors’ offices | Calls produced inadmissible hearsay and impermissible solicitations of medical opinion; should be suppressed | Calls were investigatory and permissible; not dispositive | Court held telephone inquiries to doctors’ offices were impermissible (per Mullis) |
| Whether suppression error requires discharge or other relief | Denial of suppression was dispositive; plea reservation entitles to reversal/discharge | Because pharmacy evidence was lawful, the suppression error may be nondispositive and State could obtain admissible evidence by subpoena | Court declined to order discharge; affirmed convictions but instructed remand procedures allowing Ruilova to seek withdrawal of plea or other relief depending on whether State can lawfully obtain untainted evidence |
| Appellate jurisdiction and scope to review plea-reserved suppression | Appellate review is proper where trial court and parties treated the issue as dispositive | Same | Court confirmed jurisdiction and scope to review the suppression issues and issued an "affirmed with instructions" mandate directing specific remand proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullis v. State, 79 So.3d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (distinguishing pharmacy-record lawfulness from impermissible telephone questioning of doctors’ offices)
- State v. Sun, 82 So.3d 866 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (police obtained documentary patient contracts without subpoena; evidence excluded)
- Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006) (exclusionary-rule considerations and limits)
- Leonard v. State, 760 So.2d 114 (Fla.) (appellate review post-Criminal Appeal Reform Act)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine)