State of Connecticut v. Lakisha Schatzman-Carpenter (2010)

Ruling on motion to suppress

THE COURT:  State versus Lakisha Schatzman-Carpenter.   And it is the ruling on the Defendant's motion to suppress the bank and other financial records of the Defendant.   From the evidence presented, the Court finds the following facts.   The documents in question were subpoenaed lawfully by the agency pursuant to Connecticut general statutes section 17b-137.   The Defendant, by applying for benefits knew or should have known that any financial information was subject to verification and hence had no expectation of privacy in that regard.   Any disclosure of such information by the Department at Social Services was made pursuant to the rules and regulations of the Department of Social Services.

Specifically, section 8510.20e which provides as follows:  Release of information for recoveries, overpayments, or fraud investigations.   DSS discloses to the Commissioner of Department of Administrative Services, parenthesis, capital D A S, closed parenthesis.   The Commissioner of the Department of Public Safety, parenthesis, capital D P S, closed parenthesis, the office of the Chief State's Attorney, local police departments, the office of Attorney General or the Judicial Department support enforcement information for the following purposes:  Number one, the collection of recoveries, overpayments, or investigating fraud.

Further, this information was disclosed as mandated by section 17b-90 of the Connecticut general statutes which provides as follows.   And this is in subsection B. The Commissioner of Social Services shall disclose under section three to any authorized representative of the commission-Commissioner of Administrative Services or the Commissioner of Public Safety such information as the State Commissioner of Social Services determines is directly related to and necessary for the Department of Administrative Services or the Department of Public Safety for purposes of performing their functions of collecting social service-services recoveries and overpayments or amounts due as support in social services cases, investigating social services fraud, or locating absent parents of public assistance recipients.

The Defendant has failed to meet the burden to demonstrate that 17b-137 is unconstitutional.   All legislative enactments carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality.   And a party challenging the constitutionality of a validly enacted statute bears the heavy burden of proving the statute unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt.   The possibility that the operation of a statute may result in a criminal prosecution without proper due process protections, is insufficient to find that statute facially unconstitutional absent a showing that all circumstances in which the statute is used, would result in criminal prosecutions without the attendant due process.

Since this is an administrative agency, the protections of a finding of probable cause supported by oath of affirmation, simply do not apply.   All that is needed for an administrative or an investigatory subpoena is a finding by the agency, empowered by law, that the investigation is authorized and that the information sought is reasonably relevant to the inquiry.   Therefore, the motion to suppress is denied.

Dennis, Maureen D., J.