(a) A person to whom or for whose use any narcotic drug has been prescribed, sold or dispensed by a physician, dentist, pharmacist or other person authorized under the provisions of section 21a 248, and the owner of any animal for which any such drug has been prescribed, sold or dispensed may lawfully possess it only in the container in which it was delivered to the recipient by the person selling or dispensing the same except as may be authorized by regulations adopted in accordance with the provisions of chapter 54.
(b) Any person who fails to keep such narcotic drug in the original container as provided in subsection (a) of this section, except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.
(c) The provisions of subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to any person who in good faith places such narcotic drug in either a (1) pill box, case or organizer stored within such person's residence, or (2) secured or locked pill box, case or organizer, provided such pill box, case or organizer is accompanied by proof of such person's prescription.
(1967, P.A. 555, S. 20; 1969, P.A. 753, S. 15; P.A. 99-102, S. 37; P.A. 21-102, S. 19.)
History: 1969 act referred to “narcotic” rather than “controlled” drugs; Sec. 19-464 transferred to Sec. 21a-257 in 1983; P.A. 99-102 deleted obsolete reference to osteopathy and made a technical change; P.A. 21-102 designated existing provisions as Subsec. (a) and required that if regulations are adopted they be adopted in accordance with provisions of Chap. 54, added Subsec. (b) re penalty and added Subsec. (c) re exceptions.
Annotations to former section 19-464:
Defendant held to have burden of proving he had drug in container in which it was delivered to him by person dispensing it. 148 C. 57.
Cited. 7 CA 403.
Cited. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 584.
Annotation to present section:
Section is not unconstitutionally vague as applied due to lack of notice and arbitrary enforcement despite the lack of intent or knowledge requirement in language of section, or the doctrine of desuetude, because the record is devoid of evidence that section has been openly, notoriously and pervasively violated without prosecution for a long period of time or that there has been a conspicuous policy of nonenforcement. 129 CA 239.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 2009–2014 · leading case:
State v. Coccomo, 31 A.3d 1012 (Conn. 2011).
State v. Coccomo, 31 A.3d 1012 (Conn. 2011).
· cites it 4× “violation of [General Statutes] § 53a-56b (a), three counts of misconduct with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 53a-57 (a), one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of [General Statutes] §…”
State v. Johnson, 49 A.3d 1046 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Although there is no requirement that the defendant must have known of the illegal nature of the narcotics, we note that General Statutes § 21a-257 carves an exception to the general prohibition on possession of narcotics for persons who are prescribed narcotics and maintain…”
State v. Coccomo, 972 A.2d 757 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 4× “second degree with a motor vehicle in violation of § 53a-56b (a), three counts of misconduct with a motor vehicle in violation of General Statutes § 53a-57 (a), one count of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs in violation of §…”
State v. Kamel, 972 A.2d 780 (Conn. App. Ct. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Kamel, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of two counts of failure to keep narcotics in the original container in violation of General Statutes § 21a-257, and one count each of criminal trespass in the first degree in violation of General…”
State v. Legrand, 20 A.3d 52 (Conn. App. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 12× “The court found the defendant guilty of violating § 14-227a and § 21a-257. The defendant then admitted to being a subsequent offender.”
State v. Kevalis (Conn. 2014).
· cites it 2× “On April 4, 2009, the defendant was arrested in Bridge- port and charged with one count of failure to keep a narcotic drug in the original container in violation of General Statutes § 21a-257, one count of interfering with an officer in violation of § 53a-167a, and one count of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.