129 Conn. App. 239
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant David Paul Legrand was stopped on May 18, 2007 in South Windsor for erratic driving and failed field sobriety tests.
- Seven pills, including narcotics, were found in the center console; defendant admitted they were his prescriptions but had placed them there after carrying them in his pocket.
- At the police station, defendant claimed he could not provide a urine sample and he slept during transport and custody.
- Expert testimony from Dr. Reiher and Dr. Mendelson argued long-term, properly taken medications could negate impairment, but the court found defendant abusing the meds.
- Trial court convicted Legrand of operating under the influence of drugs (14-227a) and possessing narcotics outside their original container (21a-257), and found him to be a repeat offender; sentence was two years with suspension after 200 days and three years of probation.
- The State subpoenaed the treating physician Reiher for medical records (Jan 2007–Aug 2008); records were sealed and reviewed by the court before disclosure; defense objected on privacy/privilege grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether subpoena for medical records violated the Fourth Amendment | State argues subpoena reasonable and necessary for defense implications | Legrand contends subpoena violated privacy and required a warrant | Subpoena reasonable; no Fourth Amendment violation |
| Whether medical records were privileged statutorily | State maintains limited disclosure is permissible under statutory privileges | Records could be privileged (psychiatric/medical) | Records not privileged to bar use; no reversible error |
| Sufficiency of evidence under 21a-257 | Pills found outside original containers implicate statute | Unclear delivery/possession method negates guilt | Sufficient evidence that narcotics were not in the prescribed container at time of arrest |
| § 21a-257 vagueness as applied; desuetude | Statute provides clear prohibition; desuetude not established | Lack of notice and desuetude render statute void as applied | Statute not vague as applied; desuetude not proven |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280 (2007) (Connecticut privacy and Fourth Amendment analysis related to similar issues)
- State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672 (1992) (Geisler factors for state-constitutional analysis (article I, §7) framework)
- State v. Linares, 32 Conn.App. 656 (1993) (desuetude discussion patience in appellate context; cited for desuetude framework)
- State v. Swain, 245 Conn. 442 (1998) (statutory mens rea and level of criminal intent considerations)
- State v. Perkins, 271 Conn. 218 (2004) (waiver rule; evidentiary sufficiency standards)