Top
Drug Possession

Drug Possession 

Fighting for Clients In Deland, Daytona Beach and Throughout Central Florida

Drug possession, or “narcotics” possession, is outlined in Florida Statute 893.13. Judges and lawyers can also commonly refer to it as possession of a “controlled substance.” Drug possession can include a simple misdemeanor, or a felony, depending on the type of controlled substance the police find and how much they find. Drug possession is not “drug ownership.” In other words, the State does not have to prove that you were the one who purchased the drugs, or that you acquired the drugs for your own personal use. Simply being in possession of an illegal drug, whether or not it belongs to you, can result in an arrest.

What is “Possession”?

To better explain what “possession” means as it relates to drugs and narcotics, it would be helpful for you to understand that there are two types of possession in the State of Florida. The first is called “actual” possession, and the second is called “constructive” possession.

Actual Possession means that the person who is in possession of the drugs is aware of the presence of the drugs, meaning that they know that the drugs are in the location where the officer finds the substance. The Florida Jury Instruction further describe actual possession as:

  1. the substance/drugs are in the hand of or on the person; or
  2. the substance/drugs are in a container in the hand of or on the person; or
  3. the substance is so close as to be within ready reach and is under the control of the person.

Some common examples of “actual possession” that Attorney Thompson has encountered would be when an officer finds drugs in a person’s pants pocket, in someone’s purse or backpack that they are currently holding, in a baggie in the cup holder of someone’s car, or in a joint or bowl that someone is caught smoking.

Constructive Possession means that the person charged with drug possession is aware of the substance/drugs, the substance/drugs are in a place over which the person has control, and the person has the ability to control the substance.

A common example of constructive possession that Attorney Thompson has encountered are when the police find drugs in a bag belonging to someone that is contained inside their car, or sitting near the person at the time he or she is arrested.

In addition to proving that a defendant was in possession of illegal drugs, the State is required to prove that the substance you possessed was, in fact, an illegal substance. The State is no longer required to send marijuana or cannabis for testing by an expert. The police are often times able to testify that they know it is cannabis based on the look and smell of the substance. If you are found in possession of cocaine, methamphetamines, opioids, or other prescription drugs, the State may be required to send the narcotics to an expert who will test the substance. At Thompson Law, Attorney Matt Thompson will be working your case during the time the State is using to test the drugs.

In most drug possession cases, the drugs are found as a result of a police search. Each and every search must be constitutional, and cannot violate someone’s constitutional rights. Attorney Thompson has had the pleasure of litigating drug possession cases throughout his entire career. Attorney Thompson is keenly aware of every person’s constitutional rights and he fights tirelessly to ensure that those rights are protected. Just because someone looks suspicious, or is found in an area considered to be a high drug area, does not mean that the police can simply search someone at will. The police must justify their encounter with every person, they must justify a right to search, and they must prove that the person was in possession of the drugs when they were found. If you find yourself wondering whether the police violated your constitutional rights during a search, contact Thompson Law and schedule a free consultation with Attorney Matt Thompson by calling (386) 280-4977 or toll free by calling (386) 280-4977.

Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

Coupled with possession of drugs is often a charge for possession of drug paraphernalia. In most cases, when someone is caught with drugs, they are using the drugs, getting ready to use the drugs, or just got done using drugs. And in those cases, the device that was used to inject, ingest, or introduce the drugs into the human body is sitting somewhere nearby.

Just like possession of drugs, the State is required to prove that you knew of the presence of the drug paraphernalia, and the same rules apply for actual and constructive possession. Many common items used to ingest illegal drugs also have common legal uses as well, such a syringes, pipes, or rolling paper. The State has the burden to show that those common and legal devices were used to ingest illegal narcotics. The State does this by testing the inside of the items to see if there is any residue left over from drug use. The State will also try to prove the proximity, or closeness, of the drug paraphernalia to the actual drugs.

Possession of drug paraphernalia for personal use is a misdemeanor in the first degree, and it punishable by up to a year in jail. Just like possession of drugs, possession of drug paraphernalia is often the result of a search of your person, your vehicle, or your home. Each of those places requires that the police justify the probable cause to search. If you have any questions about your case, or whether your rights were infringed upon, please set up a free consultation with Attorney Matt Thompson by calling (386) 280-4977 or toll free by calling (386) 280-4977.

Client-Focused. RESULT-DRIVEN.

Working Closely with You To Build a Strong Case
  • All Charges Dismissed Domestic Battery

    Defendant was trapped inside car where her boyfriend was acting aggressive. Defendant had to take legal action against the victim to remove him from vehicle. Attorney Thompson sent letter to State early in the case to outline defenses and mitigation and all charges were dismissed prior to filing.

  • All Charges Dismissed Resisting an Officer Without Violence

    The Client was attending a wedding and stayed in a hotel after the reception. Someone called the police regarding a noise complaint. When the police arrived, the Client would not allow the police to enter his hotel room. The police forced entry and arrested the Client for Resisting and Officer Without Violence. Attorney Thompson provided case law to the State that shows that the police officer did not have the right to enter the hotel room and arrest the Client.

  • All Charges Dismissed Domestic Battery

    Client and his husband were involved in a verbal argument. The alleged victim contacted police against the claiming that he threw a glass of milk on him. Under the law, this is considered a battery. Attorney Thompson represented the Client on both the criminal case and the injunction and both were dismissed.

  • All Charges Dismissed Racing on the Highway

    Client was arrested after leaving a car show in a fast vehicle. Officers suspected the client of racing another vehicle and police officers pulled him over, drug him out of his vehicle, and arrested him for both racing on the highway and resisting an officer without violence. Upon review of the body camera video, Attorney Matt Thompson raised an excessive use of force complaint against the arresting officer. All charges against the client were dismissed.

  • No Charges Filed and Prevented Arrest Grand Theft

    Client was caring for her special needs sister. While caring for her she received advice from bank personnel to place her sister’s Disability Checks into a bank account in the Client’s name to avoid other family members from stealing money. Once the family members discovered this they called the police to investigate the Client. Attorney Thompson put together documentation showing how the money was being spent and met with police to further explain the situation. The police determined that there was no

  • All Charges Dismissed Robbery

    Attorney Thompson met with the Client soon after his arrest. It was clear that the person who was in the vehicle with the Client was the person guilty of committing the robbery and that the Client was more of a bystander. Attorney Thompson provided information to the State Attorney’s Office to separate the Client from the co-defendant. The information provided to the State resulted in all charges against the Defendant being dismissed.