Lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the New Hampshire Board of Veterinary Medicine to inspect and enforce violations under the New Hampshire Controlled Drug Act

QUESTION PRESENTED Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Whether the New Hampshire Supreme Court erred in failing to find that the New Hampshire Board of Veterinary Medicine (the “BVM”), an administrative agency under the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, lacked subject matter jurisdiction to inspect and make findings of violations under the New Hampshire Controlled Drug Act (the “Controlled Drug Act”), where the New Hampshire Legislature (the “Legislature”) directs that the duty “to enforce all provisions of [the Controlled Drug Act]” rests solely with “the department of health and human services, [and its agents]; the pharmacy board [and its agents]; and of all peace officers within the state, and of all county attorneys,” Revised Statutes, Annotated (“RSA”) 318-B:23, violations of the Controlled Drug Act are criminal in nature, RSA 318B:26, and where the New Hampshire Legislature has specifically directed, that “[a]ll physicians, veterinarians, dentists, advanced registered nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and clinics. . . shall be subject to inspection and regulation by the board of pharmacy with regard to the storage, labeling, distribution, and disposal of prescription drugs,” RSA _ 318:8-a (emphasis supplied); see also RSA 318-B:25 (inspections authorized under Controlled Drug Act).