The Office of the Attorney General William Tong
1998 Formal Opinions
Page 1 of 2
-
You have asked our office to provide an opinion on the legality of random drug testing of student-athletes at the University of Connecticut. The Division of Athletics at the University has revised its drug testing policy; this opinion addresses that revision.
-
Your office has asked this office for advice about the applicability and constitutionality of Public Act 97-58, 1, with regard to Allstate's "Do I Need An Attorney?" flyer.
-
You have asked this office for an opinion regarding whether Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-627 to 20-630 apply to the "Pequot Pharmaceutical Network", a pharmacy owned and operated by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation on the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation in Ledyard, Connecticut. These statutory provisions regulate "nonresident pharmacies", which are defined as "any pharmacy located outside this state which ships, mails or delivers, in any manner, legend devices or legend drugs . . . into this State." Conn. Gen. Stat. 20-627. Thus, the dispositive question is whether a pharmacy located solely on reservation land situated within the geographical boundaries of the State of Connecticut is "within" the State of Connecticut for purposes of the statute.
-
You have requested a formal opinion by this office regarding issues presented in Public Act 98-111, Connecticut's most recent "Megan's Law." Public Act 98-111, which becomes effective October 1, 1998, establishes a sexual offender registration system for Connecticut that significantly expands the circumstances under which a convicted sexual offender is required to register with and provide current information to the Department of Public Safety and Connecticut State Police. Failure to register as required is a Class D felony under the act.
-
In a memorandum dated October 5, 1998, your agency asked for our opinion regarding two questions that have arisen since the issuance of our September 28, 1998 opinion regarding Public Act 98-111. The first question asks the following: 1) A review of the opinion would seem to indicate that an individual convicted of, for example, C.G.S. Sec. 53a-71(a)(1), and sentenced to a term of probation commencing September 28, 1998 would not have to be registered under either Public Act 97-183 or Public Act. 98-111. Your second question is as follows: 2) Section 3(b) of the Act provides that any individual who has been subject to the registration requirements of Public Act 97-183 must register under Public Act 98-111 in the manner required for sexually violent offenders.
-
You have asked for an opinion regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), originally executed April 25, 1994, between the State of Connecticut and the Mohegan Tribe ("Tribe") which permits the Tribe to operate video facsimile games as long as the Tribe contributes to the State a percentage of the revenue generated from those games in accordance with the terms of the MOU. In particular, a dispute has arisen between the Division of Special Revenue ("Division") and the Tribe concerning how to calculate certain payments.
-
This is in response to your request for opinion pertaining to reimbursement of regulatory costs under the Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Procedures, 56 Fed. Reg. 24996 (May 31, 1991) (Procedures). You ask whether the Procedures, which allow you to assess the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (Tribe) for "reasonable and necessary costs" of regulating and investigating operations at Foxwoods, include reimbursement of indirect as well as direct costs.
-
This is in response to your request for an opinion on whether an employee of the Division of Special Revenue (DOSR) may own stock in International Game Technology, Inc. (IGT) in light of the conflict of interest rules contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. |12-561.
-
I have reviewed your December 23, 1997 request for our opinion on whether local registrars of voters are required by law to supply the Social Security numbers of voters to the State Jury Administrator to assist the Administrator in the preparation of the master jury list. According to your letter, the legislature mandated the disclosure of this information in Public Act 97-200 as a means to properly and more precisely compile lists of potential jurors.
-
This is in response to a request from your Department for an opinion on whether your agency can use minors in unannounced tobacco age law enforcement checks at Connecticut bars serving alcoholic liquor.
-
Your office has inquired about the status of a pending application to extend a permit previously issued to Fedus Associates, LLC to construct an asphalt plant in Colchester, Connecticut. Your inquiry asks about the effect Public Act 98-216 has on the company's application.
-
In a letter dated April 16, 1998, you requested our advice on the authority of the New Haven County Sheriffs Department to operate the Union Avenue Detention Center (New Haven lockup). Your request arose as a result of a report by the Auditors of Public Accounts which questions whether your continued operation of the New Haven lockup is in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
-
This is in response to your letter dated June 2, 1998, in which you request our opinion regarding the scope of authority delegated to the State Traffic Commission ("Commission") to establish speed limits on multiple lane, limited access state highways. More specifically, you ask whether or not the Commission has the authority to establish a speed limit above fifty-five (55) miles per hour but less than the sixty-five (65) miles per hour maximum speed limit set forth in Conn. Public Acts No. 98-181, Sec. 1.
-
Your department requested our advice on whether individuals or firms providing personal services to the Department of Public Safety, to examine fire damaged electrical systems in order to determine whether such systems caused the fire, must be licensed as private detectives in accordance with Section 29-153 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
-
Your department requests clarification of a previously issued opinion regarding the question of whether interior designers, practicing within the scope of services described in Conn. Gen. Stat.