State v. Wiedeman
286 Neb. 193
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Wiedeman was charged with 10 counts of acquiring a controlled substance by fraud under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-418 (2008), based on filling multiple prescriptions obtained through a single overarching deception from 2009 to 2010.
- Pretrial rulings included a plea in abatement, a motion to suppress prescription records, and a motion to suppress medical records; the court overruled these motions and the case proceeded to trial.
- The State obtained Wiedeman’s pharmacy records nationwide via subpoenas under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 86-2,112; Wiedeman challenged Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to those records.
- Evidence at trial showed Wiedeman’s treatments from multiple providers (Ball, Laux, Burkhart, Cheloha) and multiple pharmacies, with a pain contract restricting prescriptions and aggregating many narcotic fills.
- Wiedeman admitted to taking medications for pain and addiction; the defense argued the State’s charges should be limited to a single misrepresentation, not multiple counts for each prescription.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the trial court, holding that the prescription records and related searches did not violate Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that there was sufficient evidence to sustain all 10 convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prescription records subpoenas violated rights | Wiedeman | Wiedeman | No Fourth/14th Amendment violation; records admissible |
| Probable cause for medical records warrant | Wiedeman | Wiedeman | Probable cause affidavit adequate; suppression denied |
| Sufficiency of evidence for 10 counts | Wiedeman | Wiedeman | Evidence supports each count; multiple prescriptions from deceitful conduct count separately |
| Privacy interests in prescription records | Wiedeman | Wiedeman | No 14th Amendment violation; statute and Whalen support access under safeguards |
Key Cases Cited
- Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977) (prescription-records privacy; not a per se violation under 14th Amendment)
- United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976) (bank records standing; relevance to expectations of privacy)
- State v. Cody, 248 Neb. 683 (1995) (property-based factors in reasonable privacy expectations; pharmacy records context)
- State v. Borst, 281 Neb. 217 (2011) (Fourth Amendment search standards; suppression considerations)
- State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500 (2011) (sufficiency/standard of review in criminal appeals; related to § 28-418 context)