Defending Against Drug-Related Object Charges: Strategies and Tactics
When charged with possession of drug-related objects in Georgia, it’s important to remember that this is a serious criminal offense.
Under O.C.G.A. § 16-13-32.2, possession of drug-related objects such as pipes, scales, syringes, or any paraphernalia used to consume, package, or store controlled substances can result in fines and imprisonment.
However, there are a variety of legal defenses that can be used to contest such charges. The right defense could lead to the dismissal of charges, reduction of penalties, or a favorable verdict in court.
As Georgia criminal defense lawyers, we wanted to write a blog post we analyzing 52 possible defenses against a possession of drug-related objects charge in Georgia.
1. Lack of Knowledge
A common defense is that the defendant was unaware of the presence of the drug-related object. If the item was in a place where the defendant had no knowledge, such as a vehicle they didn't drive or a shared residence, they could argue that they did not know it was there. This defense hinges on demonstrating that the defendant did not knowingly possess the object.
2. Lack of Control
In cases where the drug-related object was found in a common area or was accessible by others, the defendant may argue they did not have control over it. If the item was not in the defendant's immediate possession or control, it could be argued that they didn't possess the object in the eyes of the law.
3. No Intent to Use
Even if the defendant possessed the object, they might not have intended to use it for drug-related activity. For example, if the object is a common item that could be used for legitimate purposes (such as a scale or a spoon), the defense could argue that it was not intended for drug use but for a different, non-illegal purpose.
4. Unlawful Search and Seizure
If law enforcement conducted an illegal search without probable cause or a warrant, any evidence they collected, including drug-related objects, could be excluded from trial. Under the Fourth Amendment, if a search is unlawful, any evidence found as a result is typically inadmissible in court.
5. False Allegations
The defendant may argue that they were falsely accused of possessing a drug-related object. This could happen if, for example, the object was planted by someone else or if the police misidentified the defendant as the owner of the object. The defense could focus on discrediting the accuser or providing evidence that the object belonged to someone else.
6. The Object Was Not Drug-Related
Sometimes the object in question might not be drug-related at all. For example, a pipe or a scale could be used for legitimate, non-drug-related activities. The defense could argue that the object was not being used for any illicit purpose, such as a simple pipe being used for smoking tobacco or a scale being used for weighing personal items.
7. Insufficient Evidence
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the object was used in connection with illegal drug activity. If they fail to present sufficient evidence to establish this link, the defense can argue that the prosecution's case is weak and should be dismissed.
8. The Object Was For Personal Use, Not Distribution
In some cases, the possession of a drug-related object may be related to personal use rather than distribution. If the defendant can demonstrate that the object was used solely for their personal consumption of drugs and not for distributing or selling drugs, this could reduce the severity of the charge.
9. No Connection to Drugs
Another defense is that the drug-related object wasn’t connected to drugs at all. For example, a defendant could argue that they possessed a particular item, such as a pipe, but there was no actual drug involved in the situation, and the item was not used for drug-related activities.
10. Coercion or Duress
If the defendant was forced or threatened into possessing the object by someone else, they may be able to argue that they were under duress. Coercion might involve threats of harm or violence, and the defendant's actions could be viewed as a response to that pressure, not an intentional criminal act.
11. Mistaken Identity
The defendant might argue that they were mistakenly identified as the person possessing the drug-related object. If there is a lack of direct evidence connecting the defendant to the object, a mistaken identity defense can challenge the prosecution’s claim.
12. The Object Was Found in a Shared Space
If the drug-related object was found in a shared area, such as a car, house, or apartment, the defendant might argue that they had no knowledge of the object or no control over it. If more than one person had access to the space, it becomes difficult to prove that the defendant was responsible for the object.
13. No Drug Activity Involved
The defendant might argue that even though the object in question is drug-related, there was no actual drug activity involved. For instance, a scale could have been used for weighing something unrelated to drugs, such as personal items, or a baggie could have been used for non-drug substances.
14. The Object Was Left Behind by Someone Else
The defense might argue that the drug-related object didn’t belong to the defendant and was left behind by someone else. If the object was found in a place where others had access, the defendant might argue that it was not their responsibility.
15. Impossibility of Drug Use
Sometimes, the defendant might argue that it was physically impossible for the object to have been used in the way suggested by the prosecution. For example, if the object was broken, damaged, or in a condition that made it unusable, the defense could claim that it wasn’t capable of being used in a criminal manner.
16. The Object Was an Accident or Mishap
If the object was found in a situation where it could have been placed there by accident or through an unintentional mishap, the defendant could argue that they did not intentionally possess it. This could apply to situations where the object was found in a bag or pocket that belonged to someone else.
17. Pretrial Diversion Programs
In Georgia, first-time offenders may be eligible for pretrial diversion programs that could result in a dismissal of charges after completion. A defense attorney could argue that the defendant is a suitable candidate for such a program, especially if they have no criminal history and have shown remorse.
18. Lack of Evidence of Ownership
Even if a drug-related object is found, there must be evidence to prove that the defendant owned or had control over it. If there is no clear proof of ownership or possession, the defense can argue that the defendant was not in possession of the object.
19. Involuntary Confession
If the defendant confessed to possessing the object but their confession was obtained through coercion or duress, it could be ruled inadmissible in court. A defense attorney could argue that any statements made were involuntary or obtained under improper circumstances.
20. Evidence of Other People’s Possession
If multiple people were present at the time of the arrest, the defense might argue that someone else was responsible for possessing the drug-related object. This can be especially effective in shared spaces, such as a vehicle or home.
21. Violation of Miranda Rights
If the defendant was interrogated by law enforcement without being read their Miranda rights (the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney), any statements made during the interrogation could be inadmissible in court. The defense can argue that the defendant's rights were violated, and evidence obtained through the violation should be excluded.
22. Evidence of Police Misconduct
If there is evidence of police misconduct, such as planting evidence or engaging in deceptive practices, the defense could argue that the drug-related object was obtained through unlawful actions.
23. Drug-Free Zone Defense
If the defendant is charged with possessing a drug-related object in a school zone or another protected area, the defense could argue that the object was not intended for drug-related activity or that the defendant was not aware they were in a restricted zone.
24. Unlawful Arrest
If the defendant was arrested without probable cause or a valid arrest warrant, any evidence found during the arrest—including drug-related objects—could be challenged as the result of an unlawful arrest.
25. Evidence of Addiction Treatment
If the defendant has a history of drug addiction, the defense could argue that the object was part of a personal treatment or recovery process, such as medical devices used for administering prescribed medication.
26. Testimony of Character Witnesses
A character witness who can testify to the defendant's law-abiding nature and lack of involvement in drug-related activities may help persuade the court to drop or reduce the charges.
27. The Object Was Legal in Another Jurisdiction
In some cases, the defendant may have come from a jurisdiction where the object was legal. The defense might argue that the defendant didn’t realize it was illegal in Georgia, and therefore, they should not be held liable.
28. Improper Lab Analysis
If the prosecution relies on lab analysis to show that the object is drug-related, the defense can challenge the accuracy of the analysis or raise doubts about the testing procedure used.
29. Violation of Speedy Trial Rights
If there has been a significant delay in the defendant's trial, they may argue that their right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment, was violated, which could lead to the charges being dropped.
30. The Defendant Was a Passenger, Not the Driver
If the drug-related object was found in a car and the defendant was merely a passenger, the defense might argue that the object belonged to the driver or another passenger and that the defendant had no knowledge or control over it.
31. The Object Was Found in Plain View Without Probable Cause
If a law enforcement officer discovered the drug-related object in plain view during a legal stop or search, but there was no probable cause to justify the search, the defense may argue that any subsequent seizure was unlawful. The plain view doctrine allows seizure of evidence only if the officer is lawfully present and has probable cause.
32. The Item Was Part of an Ongoing Investigation
If the defendant was part of an ongoing law enforcement investigation (e.g., working undercover or cooperating with authorities), they could argue that they were in possession of the object as part of a larger investigation, potentially providing context to the situation.
33. The Object Was Owned by Someone Else Who Left It Behind
If the defendant was in a shared space or location, such as a friend’s house, and the drug-related object was found there, the defense could argue that it was left behind by someone else and was not under the defendant’s control.
34. The Defendant Was Unaware of the Object’s Functionality
The defendant might argue that they had the object, such as a pipe or a syringe, but had no idea it was a drug-related object. If the item could be used for both lawful and unlawful purposes, this defense can show that the defendant didn't know or understand the nature of the object.
35. The Drug-Related Object Was Left in the Defendant’s Possession by Another Party
This defense claims that the object was left in the defendant’s possession, either unintentionally or with no illegal intent. For example, if someone left a bag containing drug-related paraphernalia at the defendant’s house or car without their knowledge.
36. The Object Was Used for Legal Medical Purposes
The defendant could argue that the object, such as a syringe, pipe, or vape device, was used for legal medical purposes. For instance, if the defendant had a prescription for medical marijuana or was using the object to administer prescribed medications (such as insulin), this could serve as a defense.
37. No Evidence That the Object Was Used for Drug Activity
Even if a drug-related object is found, it’s essential for the prosecution to prove it was used in drug activity. If no drugs are present or there is no clear evidence linking the object to drug use, the defense can argue that there is insufficient evidence to support the charge.
38. The Defendant Was Set Up
If the defendant was set up by someone else—whether another individual or law enforcement—the defense could argue that the possession of the drug-related object was part of a larger conspiracy to frame the defendant. This may involve false testimony or misleading evidence.
39. The Object Was Found in a Backpack or Purse That Didn’t Belong to the Defendant
If the object was found in a backpack or purse that wasn’t the defendant’s, the defense might argue that they had no knowledge or control over the contents of that item. This is particularly effective when the object is not easily traceable back to the defendant.
40. The Search Was Based on Racial Profiling or Discrimination
If the defendant was stopped, searched, or targeted based on their race, ethnicity, or another discriminatory factor, the defense could argue that the search was unlawful or that evidence was improperly obtained through racial profiling.
41. The Object Was Not Drug-Related But Was Part of a Legal Activity
For example, if the defendant possessed a glass pipe, but the prosecution could not prove it was used for drugs, the defense might argue that the object was used for a lawful activity, such as smoking tobacco or performing an art project.
42. Drug-Related Object Was Not Functional
The defendant might argue that the object was not functional or was inoperable, such as a broken pipe, an empty syringe, or a scale that didn’t work. The lack of functionality could negate the charge since it wasn't capable of being used for drug activity.
43. The Object Was in the Possession of a Third Party
If the object was in a location where multiple people had access, such as a public area or a shared space, the defense could argue that the defendant did not possess or control the item, and the object may have belonged to someone else.
44. Evidence Was Obtained During an Unconstitutional Stop
If the police officer did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop the defendant (such as pulling them over without a valid reason), any evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful stop, including a drug-related object, may be subject to exclusion.
45. Defendant Was Under the Influence at the Time of Arrest
If the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the arrest, they may not have been fully aware of the object’s presence or significance. The defense could argue that the defendant lacked the intent to possess the object due to impairment at the time of the offense.
46. The Defendant Was Not Read Their Miranda Rights
If the defendant was questioned by law enforcement officers and their Miranda rights were not read to them, any statements they made could be inadmissible in court. This includes statements admitting to possessing the drug-related object. This could lead to the exclusion of critical evidence.
47. The Object Was Found in a Common Area of a Shared Home
If the object was found in a shared home or a common area (like a living room, bathroom, or kitchen), the defense could argue that there is no clear proof the defendant owned or controlled the object. In a shared space, possession cannot be assumed just because the item was found there.
48. The Defendant Was a Victim of Police Overreach
The defense could argue that the police officers exceeded their authority during the investigation. This could involve excessive force, illegal searches, or other overreaching actions that resulted in the discovery of the drug-related object.
49. The Defendant Is Entitled to Immunity (Under Georgia's Immunity Statutes)
Georgia law provides some immunity protections for individuals who report or cooperate in certain criminal investigations, such as the Good Samaritan Law or immunity related to certain drug-related activities. If the defendant was involved in reporting or assisting law enforcement in a case involving drugs, they may be entitled to immunity or reduced charges.
50. The Object Was Only Part of the Defendant’s Legal Personal Property
If the drug-related object was part of personal property legally owned by the defendant, the defense could argue that it was not used for drug-related activity. For instance, a grinder may be used for spices or other non-illegal substances, not necessarily for drugs.
51. The Defendant Was Not Involved in Any Criminal Activity
If the defendant has no history of drug-related crimes or other criminal activities, the defense might argue that the charge is inconsistent with the defendant’s character. A clean record, positive character witnesses, and good community standing may support the claim that the defendant was not involved in illegal drug activity.
52. Drug-Related Objects Were Found in a Legal Context (Workplace, Medical Use, etc.)
The defense might argue that the drug-related object was part of a legitimate context, such as a medical environment or work setting. For example, medical equipment that may appear to be drug-related (like a needle) might be used for legitimate medical purposes.
Georgia Possession and Use of Drug-Related Objects Lawyer
Defending against charges of possession of drug-related objects in Georgia requires a comprehensive and strategic approach.
With 52 potential defenses, ranging from challenging the legality of the search to questioning the intent or functionality of the object, there are numerous ways to challenge the prosecution’s case. Each defense hinges on the specific facts of the case, the evidence presented, and the actions taken by law enforcement.
By working with an experienced possession of drug-related objects lawyer at The Sherman Law Group, you can ensure that all relevant defenses are explored and that your rights are protected throughout the legal process.
Whether it's proving a lack of control over the object, disputing the evidence, or showing that the object had a legitimate purpose, a skilled lawyer can navigate the complexities of Georgia’s drug laws to build the strongest defense possible.
If you're facing charges for possession of drug-related objects, don’t wait to seek legal advice. Early intervention and a well-planned defense strategy can significantly impact the outcome of your case and potentially lead to a reduction or dismissal of charges.