Title: State v. Welch

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

STATE_V_WELCH.90-392; 160 Vt. 70; 624 A.2d 1105


[Opinion Filed 30-Oct-1992]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 24-Feb-1993]

 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 90-392


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 1, Rutland Circuit

 Judy D. Welch                                February Term, 1992



 Paul F. Hudson, J.

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
   Attorney General, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

 E.M. Allen, Defender General, and Anna E. Saxman and William Nelson,
   Appellate Defenders, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      GIBSON, J.   Defendant Judy Welch appeals orders of the district court
 denying two motions to suppress evidence and two motions to dismiss.  She
 was charged with concealing material facts in obtaining prescriptions for
 regulated drugs.  18 V.S.A. { 4223(a)(3) & (h).  Defendant argues that her
 right to privacy was violated by a warrantless inspection of her prescrip-
 tion records at Rutland area pharmacies, that the investigation of her
 prescriptions for "doctor shopping" was tainted by confessions she made
 after signing an immunity agreement, and that she lacked the requisite mens
 rea for the alleged violations.  We affirm.
                                     I.
      On October 5, 1988, Judy Welch was working as a nurse at the Rutland
 Correctional Center (RCC).  She was relieved at 2:30 p.m. by nurse Nancy
 McDonald, but before leaving for the day Welch went to a neighborhood
 pharmacy to pick up a prescription of Vicodan for an inmate.  This was
 unusual because the pharmacy routinely delivered prescriptions.  Later that
 afternoon, McDonald discovered that the prescription contained ten Vicodan
 tablets instead of the twelve tablets indicated on the label, and that
 defendant's prescription-log entry showed that "10-12" tablets had been
 ordered.  This, too, was unusual because prescriptions are normally ordered
 in a definite, not an approximate, amount.  Checking with the pharmacy,
 McDonald confirmed that the prescription had contained twelve tablets.
 Later in the evening, Welch called McDonald at the correctional facility
 and asked if "everything was all right," an unusual call for her to make.
 McDonald reported these events, including the discrepancy in the pill count,
 to RCC Superintendent Michael O'Malley.
      O'Malley, who knew that Welch had previously had a drug problem, met
 with her on October 7.  At O'Malley's behest, Welch telephoned McDonald
 after the meeting and admitted that she had taken the two tablets.  O'Malley
 took no further action regarding the incident.  In March 1989, however, an
 employee of RCC wrote to the state's attorney alleging drug diversions from
 the RCC infirmary, and shortly thereafter, O'Malley received a letter from
 the state's attorney inquiring about "potential drug abuse" at RCC.
 O'Malley assigned Assistant Superintendent Stewart Robinson to investigate
 the matter.
      On April 3, Robinson interviewed defendant as part of the internal RCC
 investigation.  Defendant read and signed a so-called Garrity warning, see
 Garrity v. New Jersey,