Defending Against Drug Charges: Common Strategies

Drug crimes remain one of the most common and serious offenses across the United States. Drug-related offenses can range from possession of controlled substances to trafficking, manufacturing, or distributing illegal drugs.

The consequences of a conviction for a drug crime in Missouri can be severe, including substantial fines, long prison sentences, and lasting criminal records that can impact a defendant's life long after their sentence is served. 

Effective defense strategies are crucial in drug crime cases. At Howard L. Lotven, P.C., located in Kansas City, Missouri, I aim to help individuals understand their rights when they have been accused of drug crimes. Let’s look at some common strategies a drug crimes attorney may use to defend clients.

Unlawful Search and Seizure: Challenging the Evidence

A common and effective defense strategy for those accused of drug crimes is challenging the legality of the search and seizure that led to the discovery of the drugs. Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, individuals are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers. This protection is also in Missouri law.

An experienced drug crimes attorney can examine whether law enforcement officers had a valid reason to stop, search, or seize property from the defendant. Some of the ways an unlawful search and seizure defense can be raised include the following.

Lack of Probable Cause for Arrest or Search

Police must have probable cause to arrest or search without a warrant. If a drug crimes attorney can show that there was no probable cause to justify a search or arrest, the evidence obtained from that search or seizure may be ruled inadmissible in court.

In Missouri, police are required to have specific and articulable facts to establish probable cause. A defense lawyer may argue that the arrest or search was based on a hunch, racial profiling, or insufficient legal justification.

Failure to Obtain a Warrant

In some cases, the police may fail to obtain a valid warrant before conducting a search. For example, unless the police have a warrant or there are exigent circumstances, they can’t search a person’s home or vehicle. If the search of a person or a residence is conducted without a warrant and no exception applies, evidence obtained from that search can be suppressed.

Illegal Vehicle Search

If drugs are found in a defendant’s car, the defense may argue that the police didn’t have probable cause to stop the vehicle or that the search of the vehicle was unlawful. A lack of probable cause or consent to search the vehicle could lead to the exclusion of evidence.

Mistaken Identity or Lack of Knowledge

In many drug crime cases, particularly those involving possession, the defense strategy may focus on asserting that the defendant wasn’t the person in possession of the drugs or didn’t have knowledge of the presence of the drugs.

Under Missouri law, for someone to be convicted of possession of a controlled substance, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly possessed the drugs. Claims of mistaken identity or lack of knowledge can help assert a defendant’s innocence.

Mistaken Identity

One of the most common defenses in drug crimes is that the defendant was mistakenly identified as the individual in possession of the drugs. For instance, the drugs may have belonged to someone else or been left in a location that was accessible to multiple people, such as a shared vehicle or apartment.

A drug crimes attorney may argue that the police mistakenly attributed the drugs to the defendant or that the defendant was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Lack of Knowledge

In many cases, the defendant may argue that they were unaware of the drugs being in their possession. For example, a person may unknowingly carry a bag containing drugs because they were given the bag by another person.

Missouri law allows for a defense based on the lack of knowledge of the drugs’ presence, but the defendant must prove that they didn’t know and couldn’t reasonably have known that the drugs were in their possession.

Entrapment Defense

Entrapment occurs when law enforcement officers induce an individual to commit a crime that they otherwise wouldn’t have committed. Under Missouri law, a person can’t be convicted for a crime that they were tricked into committing by government agents or informants.

Entrapment is a defense strategy a drug crimes attorney may use to argue that the defendant was coerced or persuaded by law enforcement to commit the drug offense. This involves arguments of government outreach and a lack of pre-existing criminal intent.

Government Overreach

A defense attorney might argue that the government or its agents (such as undercover officers or informants) encouraged or instigated the defendant’s criminal behavior.

For example, if a defendant is arrested for purchasing drugs from an undercover officer, and it can be shown that the officer initiated the transaction or used undue pressure to make the defendant commit the crime, the defense could argue that the defendant was entrapped.

Lack of Pre-Existing Criminal Intent

In an entrapment defense, the lawyer will also emphasize that the defendant had no prior intent to commit a drug crime and that any criminal behavior was solely a result of law enforcement's manipulation. This can be crucial when trying to demonstrate that the defendant wasn’t predisposed to engage in illegal drug activity.

False Allegations or Testimony

In some cases, the defendant’s lawyer may argue that the charges are based on false allegations or testimony from unreliable witnesses. False accusations in drug crime cases may arise due to misunderstandings, personal animosities, or even attempts to shift blame onto an innocent person.

A reputable drug crimes lawyer will take both witness credibility and the possibility of false confessions into account.

Credibility of the Witness

In drug crime cases, the prosecution may rely on the testimony of law enforcement officers, confidential informants, or other witnesses. A defense attorney can challenge the credibility of these witnesses.

For example, if the informant has a criminal record, the defense may argue that the informant is unreliable. Similarly, if law enforcement officers have a history of misconduct, the defense may use this information to cast doubt on the validity of their testimony.

False Confessions

In some cases, defendants may be pressured or coerced into providing false confessions. Defense attorneys often look for signs of police misconduct or violations of rights that may have led to a false confession. If there’s evidence of coercion, manipulation, or deceptive interrogation tactics, a defendant's confession may be ruled inadmissible.

A drug crimes attorney may also discuss a defendant’s lack of intent to distribute. Let’s take a closer look at the difference between possession and distribution.

Lack of Intent to Distribute: Possession vs. Distribution

In drug crime cases, particularly those involving charges of possession with intent to distribute, a defense strategy may focus on distinguishing between mere possession and the intent to distribute.

Missouri law differentiates between possession of drugs for personal use and possession with the intent to distribute. To convict someone of drug trafficking or distribution, the prosecution must show that the defendant had the intent to distribute the drugs, as opposed to merely possessing them for personal use.

When a drug crimes attorney employs this strategy, the following evidence may come into play.

Absence of Packaging or Scales

A defense attorney may argue that the defendant didn’t intend to distribute the drugs, particularly if there is no evidence of packaging, scales, large quantities of drugs, or other paraphernalia typically associated with drug trafficking.

For example, the defense could argue that the defendant was simply in possession of drugs for personal use and didn’t have any plans to distribute or sell the drugs.

Circumstantial Evidence

In many cases, the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence to establish the defendant's intent to distribute. A defense lawyer can challenge such evidence, arguing that it doesn’t prove that the defendant intended to sell or distribute the drugs.

By attacking the evidence or highlighting inconsistencies, a defense attorney can call into question whether the distribution was truly the defendant’s purpose.

Contact a Trusted Drug Crimes Attorney for Representation

Defending against drug charges requires a deep understanding of the law, effective legal strategies, and a thorough investigation of the facts. Working with a knowledgeable drug crimes attorney is imperative.

Based in Independence, Missouri, and serving clients in Independence, Kansas City, Rock Port, and Lexington, I’m experienced in using a wide range of strategies to defend those who have been accused of drug crimes. Contact Howard L. Lotven, P.C. for the reliable representation you need.