Jul 4, 2002 By Jennifer Harr 3 min read

Several pretrial issues were settled Wednesday in Fayette County Court during a pre-trial hearing for Dr. Mark S. Fremd, including the suppression of a stolen gun taken from his office during a 2000 search. Fremd, 47, of 205 N. Carnegie Ave., Connellsville, is facing two sets of charges that stem from a six-year investigation by the attorney general’s office. Most of the charges levied against him deal with allegations that he handed out prescriptions to patients in exchange for money, sex or guns.

Fremd’s attorney, Paul Gettleman, successfully argued that a stolen handgun found in a safe at Fremd’s Connellsville office should be suppressed because police and state agents improperly seized it.

Gettleman argued that because officers ran the serial number of the gun to determine if it was Fremd’s, they seized it in violation of a search warrant that allowed them to look for files and documentation concerning his practice.

State attorney Andrew Demarest argued that the gun was in plain view once Fremd opened the safe, but Judge John F. Wagner Jr. ruled that police could not have known by merely looking at the weapon that it was stolen.

He suppressed the gun, which will likely lead to the dismissal of a receiving stolen property charge filed because of the weapon.

Other guns found in Fremd’s office, including a sawed off shotgun reportedly propped up behind the door of an X-ray room, and other guns in the safe, were not suppressed. No charges were filed relative to those weapons.

Wagner said he would enter an order authorizing that the stolen weapon be returned to its owner.

In another issue, Wagner asked Gettleman and Demarest to agree to collaborate on a change of wording in the second set of charges Fremd faces. Filed last year, that case includes 736 individual charges.

Gettleman questioned why, as in the first case, Fremd was not charged with a continuing course of conduct. Essentially, the continuing course charge allows prosecutors to eliminate duplicate charges and lump together offenses that would normally be separate.

Demarest also agreed to alter the complaints filed against Fremd so that they did not include offenses before 1995.

Any offenses before then violate the five-year statute of limitations on charges that can be filed against Fremd.

Wagner reserved ruling on Gettleman’s motion to dismiss a criminal solicitation charge filed after Fremd allegedly roped a woman into a sex for drugs exchange. Gettleman argued that the woman – according to her prior testimony – never directly received pills from Fremd, and the charge was inappropriate.

Wagner also reserved his decision if Fremd was charged under the wrong portion of the state’s drug statute.