Knipp v. State
67 So. 3d 376
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Knipp and Kiser were charged with doctor shopping (withholding information from a practitioner) and with trafficking in oxycodone for possession beyond legal limits.
- Each defendant obtained prescriptions from two different Broward County physicians within a short window (within days) for the same or similar drugs.
- There was no evidence that either defendant affirmatively misled a physician or that physicians asked about other prescriptions within the prior 30 days.
- The defense moved to dismiss the doctor shopping charges, arguing the statute punishes withholding information but does not require disclosure of prior prescriptions absent an affirmative request.
- The State cross-moved to dismiss trafficking counts, contending that a valid prescription obtained in violation of doctor shopping statutes could still be a valid defense under the trafficking statute.
- The trial court denied the doctor shopping dismissals and granted the trafficking dismissals; the appellate court reviewed de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does doctor shopping require affirmative disclosure? | Knipp/Kiser: statute requires withholding information when seeking a prescription. | Kipp/Kiser: no duty to disclose absent an affirmative question by the doctor. | Withholding information requires an affirmative disclosure; statute unambiguous. |
| Does doctor shopping vitiate the valid prescription defense to trafficking/possession? | State: violation of doctor shopping means prescriptions are invalid for defense. | Knipp/Kiser: valid prescription defense remains even if obtained via doctor shopping. | Valid prescription defense remains; trafficking/possession still governed by §499.03. |
| Should trafficking charges be dismissed where valid prescriptions exist? | State contends the mere existence of a prescription does not control; composition of charges stands. | Defendants: possession under valid prescription excludes trafficking liability. | Trafficking charges subject to valid prescription defense were properly dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Santiago, 938 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (discusses de novo review of dismissal decisions)
- Simpson v. State, 33 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (distinguishes cases with factual traverse from pure legal issue)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (statutory interpretation guiding plain-language reading)
- Kalogeropolous, 758 So. 2d 110 (Fla.2000) (requirements for denial of motion to dismiss when traverse denies material facts)
- Deonarine v. State, 967 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (context of physician prescribing behavior in pill mills)