Criminal Law – suppression motion re pharmacy records, crime of purchasing pseudoephedrine: Pitcock v. Commonwealth (COA 6/12/2009)

Pitcock v. Commonwealth
2007-CA-002014 06/12/2009 2009 WL 2341428

Opinion by Senior Judge Knopf; Judges Dixon and Keller concurred.

The Court affirmed a judgment of the circuit court sentencing appellant to two years of imprisonment for his conditional guilty plea to one count of unlawful possession of methamphetamine precursor, reserving the right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The Court ultimately held that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress evidence discovered when detectives checked the pharmacy logs pursuant to KRS 218A.1446, which requires anyone purchasing products containing pseudoephedrine to show a government issued identification and to sign a store log. The Court first held that, given the prevalence and severity of methamphetamine production and its effect on both individuals and society, the statue prohibiting the purchase of more than nine grams of a product containing pseudoephedrine in a thirty-day period was neither constitutionally unreasonable nor arbitrary. The Court then held that appellant had no proprietary interest in the records of the pharmacy and therefore, his argument that the statute only served a law enforcement purpose was without merit. The Court finally held that the purchase of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals was not health information intended to remain protected and therefore, the trial court did not err in finding that appellant failed to show an expectation of privacy so as to confer standing to challenge the evidence submitted.

Please note: I reserve the right to delete comments that are inappropriate, offensive or off-topic.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.