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 Sexual Battery & Domestic Battery

    Mr. Thompson took depositions of the victim showing that the victim was not truthful with police when she provided her statement as to what happened. Confronted victim with social media posts, bank records, and telephone records to show that she was not in the places that she stated she was during the time the alleged crime took place. Case 1 was dismissed and the Defendant pled to Case 2 and received two (2) years of prison and credit for fifteen (15) months in prison.

  • Charges Reduced Sale and Possession of Heroin

    Defendant entered a treatment facility while case was pending. Attorney Thompson provided progress reports of all of her progress during her stay to show improvement. State agreed to amend all charges to simple possession and the Defendant was sentenced into Drug Court.

  • 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.

  • Penalties Reduced Grand Theft, Fleeing, Possession of a Fictitious Driver’s License

    Attorney Matt Thompson, through depositions and litigation was able to show that officers did not act according to the warrant by picking up the client immediately upon sight. The charge of Fleeing or Attempting to Elude Law Enforcement, which carries a mandatory felony conviction, was dismissed by the State and the client was offered probation and no felony conviction.

  • All Charges Dismissed Battery

    The Client was working as a part time substitute teacher to help generate income to help his sick child granddaughter. While working there were children acting up and he instructed the child to stay in his seat while the others went to recess. The child claimed that the client hit him and told administration. Attorney Thompson did a public records request to obtain reports from the Department of Children and Families and noticed serious discrepancies in the child’s story. Attorney Thompson was able to p

  • All Charges Dismissed Domestic Violence

    Client was texting a friend when her significant other tried to grab for her phone. When the client tried to pull away, the victim claimed that he was battered and the client was arrested and brought before DCF due a child being in the house. Attorney Matt Thompson wrote a letter to the State explaining the discrepancy in evidence and claimed that the client was in fact moving away from the victim and did not intentionally try to hit the victim. All charges against the client were dismissed.