Unless a medical marijuana defense applies, activities that involve the sale, cultivation, transportation or possession (whether for personal use or for sale) of marijuana are illegal in California and are prosecuted as either misdemeanor or felony offenses. When any of these activities involves a minor, the offense will be automatically charged as a felony. In order to avoid the severe penalties that are associated with these types of convictions, it is critical that an individual accused of illegally engaging in marijuana activities with a minor contacts a California drug crime attorney who can begin building a vigorous defense.

Preparing for sale, selling or giving away marijuana will be charged as a felony when an adult engages in one of these activities with a minor. The penalties for these offenses range from three to nine years in the state prison for a first offense (depending on the age of the minor and on the location of the offense) and can result in lifetime incarceration if the offense is the defendant’s third.

Anyone 18 or over who prepares marijuana for sale on school grounds, a public playground, a child day care facility, a church or a synagogue or who sells or gives away marijuana to a minor upon those same grounds, upon grounds where schooling takes place or upon grounds whose facilities are open to children at any time when children are or may be present, faces a felony, punishable by five, seven or nine years in the state prison. This section only applies to an individual who is at least five years older than the minor to whom he or she engages in such an activity. It should be noted that an individual who suffers a conviction for this offense who has previously served two or more prison terms for specific drug offenses that involved minors may be imprisoned for life. The laws that regulate this sentencing scheme are technical, which is another reason why only a skilled criminal defense lawyer who regularly practices this area of law should be contacted when accused of such an offense.

Anyone 18 or over who prepares marijuana for sale in a public park or who sells or gives away marijuana to a minor under 14 in a public park, during open park hours, knowing that the minor is under 14, faces a felony, punishable by incarceration in the state prison for three, six or nine years.

Anyone 18 or over who hires, employs or uses a minor in unlawfully transporting, carrying, selling, offering to sell, giving away, preparing for sale or peddling marijuana, or who induces a minor to illegally use marijuana faces a felony, punishable by three, five or seven years in prison. The penalty is the same for furnishing, administering or giving away marijuana to a minor or for offering to do any of these activities.

Although criminal penalties won’t attach, it should be noted that an individual who owns, maintains or operates a business where drug paraphernalia is kept, displayed, sold, furnished, transferred or given away must keep a separate room for these items that excludes minors, unless they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. This section does not apply to pharmacists, doctors or others licensed by the California State Board of Pharmacy to sell or transfer drug paraphernalia. Violating this law provides grounds for revoking or not renewing a license, permit or other entitlement that allows such a business to operate.

California Marijuana and Drug Defense Lawyer

Clearly, the consequences for involving a minor in activities that deal with marijuana are severe and can be life changing. In order to best ensure that these possibilities don’t become a reality, it is vital that an individual accused of such an offense immediately contacts an experienced criminal attorney. The unsurpassed attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm specialize in California drug crime defense and are well equipped to present the most compelling arguments in order to protect the rights of their clients. Don’t wait – contact them today for a free consultation.

Chemical testing in a DUID case

Although driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana cases are investigated in very similar ways in California, there are a few differences. One of the main disparities lies within the types of chemical tests that are available to each type of suspect. In this state, an alleged “drunk driver” has the choice of taking a blood or breath test, while an individual accused of driving under the influence of drugs (DUID) has the choice of a blood or urine test. Because prosecutors heavily rely on the results of the chemical test, it is critical that an individual accused of driving under the influence of marijuana hires an attorney who understands the science behind blood and urine tests and who can articulate their weaknesses in a drug case to the judge and jury.

A driving under the influence of marijuana investigation, unlike an alcohol-related DUI, does not provide the investigating officer with the opportunity to do an on-site reading of the driver’s marijuana measurement. In a typical D.U.I. of alcohol investigation, the officer generally has a hand-held instrument, known as a preliminary alcohol screening (PAS) device that immediately displays the driver’s blood alcohol content, letting the officer know that the driver is either above or below California’s legal limit. There is no such test for an individual suspected of driving under the influence of marijuana or any other drug, which means that a suspected driver is arrested for this offense before he or she even submits to a blood or urine test.

Implied consent laws regulate which tests are available under certain circumstances and state that an individual suspected of D.U.I.D. must choose either a blood or urine test. All drivers in this state “consented” to this upon obtaining their driver’s license and the refusal to provide a chemical test will result in additional penalties.

Positive test results established through either of these tests does not mean that an individual is necessarily guilty of driving under the influence of marijuana – a key point that a skilled DUI criminal defense lawyer knows and understands. This is because marijuana can be detected in one’s system long after any impairment has passed. It should be noted that this is one area of the law where California drivers are treated more leniently than drivers in several other states that have “zero tolerance” laws. An individual whose blood or urine test comes back positive for any marijuana in a zero tolerance state will automatically be declared “under the influence”. A knowledgeable attorney in California, however, understands that urine tests detect only certain metabolites of marijuana, which can linger in one’s body for days or even weeks after use. He or she also knows that blood tests are a better indicator, as they actually measure THC (the main active ingredient of marijuana), however, even a blood test can detect low levels for a day or more after use. As a result, an experienced criminal attorney will ensure that the judge and jury understand that an individual who theoretically used marijuana on a Monday could be arrested later in the week, long after the marijuana’s effects had worn off. It must be noted that the only issue in a D.U.I. case is whether the driver was under the influence at the time of driving.

Defenses are available to an individual who tests positive for marijuana use following an arrest for DUID, provided he or she hires a savvy attorney who knows the most convincing ways to employ them. The unsurpassed lawyers at The Kavinoky Law Firm excel in California DUID defense. They keep up-to-date with the latest laws, evidentiary rulings and science that are involved with these types of cases and have mastered the defenses that are available to an individual who has been charged with driving under the influence of marijuana. Their outstanding results speak for themselves. For the most trusted legal advice and excellent representation, contact The Kavinoky Law Firm today for a free consultation.

Proposition 215 and subsequent court rulings

In 1996, Californians passed Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act, which legalizes marijuana for medical use. It allows sick Californians to use marijuana, provided they first obtain a doctor’s recommendation, and also provides doctors with a legal defense against professional or legal sanctions for recommending marijuana use.

Because Proposition 215 puts California’s law in direct conflict with federal law, litigation remains an issue when an individual is charged with marijuana use or cultivation, even if he or she claims that it was done for medicinal purposes. This is why it is so important for an individual charged with participating in any activity that is related to medical marijuana use to contact an attorney who has experience with this area of the law and who knows how to successfully resolve all issues in his or her client’s favor.

Proposition 215 was enacted to ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that use has been pre-approved by a doctor who has determined that the person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness for which marijuana provides relief. It further provides that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medicinal purposes, upon the recommendation of a doctor, are not subject to criminal prosecution. The law was designed so patients in medical need of marijuana would have safe and affordable access to the drug.

Since the passage of Proposition 215, there have been two noteworthy court cases. The first was in 1998 when the U.S. government sued the Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative in federal court for violating federal law. The Supreme Court eventually heard the case and unanimously overturned Proposition 215 in May of 2001. It should be noted that even though the law was overturned by the Court, it still exists and litigation still ensues. The second case was heard in 2003 when an Oakland resident was brought up on federal drug charges. Even though he was growing marijuana for the sick and had the legal authority from the city to do so, the federal judge ruled that Proposition 215 was not valid under federal law and, as a result, didn’t permit Prop. 215 into evidence. The jury found the defendant guilty, although once they learned about California’s law following the conclusion of the case, they demanded that the defendant be granted a new trial.

There is much debate about whether federal law should necessarily be supreme to individual state’s laws with respect to medical marijuana. There are several House members who are trying to pass bills that would force the federal government to recognize state laws relating to medical marijuana and that would amend federal law to allow state laws relating to medicinal marijuana to be raised in federal court cases.

When a legal conflict exists (such as this one between state and federal law), and a case goes before a judge – either state or federal – his or her ruling is based on his or her legal interpretation of the laws. This is why it is critical that an individual accused of illegal marijuana activity employs an aggressive and knowledgeable criminal defense lawyer who knows how effectively convey the interpretation that favors his or her client. The outstanding criminal attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm are devoted to protecting the rights of their clients with skill and integrity. They have mastered drug defense and are well equipped to successfully tackle any issues that comes their way. With law offices throughout California, including several in Los Angeles, they are conveniently located to assist anyone in need of an experienced drug crime attorney. For the most trusted legal advice and unparalleled representation, contact them today for a free consultation.

Personal possession of marijuana – temporary possession for disposal

Personal possession of marijuana may be prosecuted as either a misdemeanor or as a felony, depending on what type of marijuana the accused possessed and how much of the drug was possessed. Although the consequences of this offense are not as severe as a possession of marijuana for sale charge, they are still serious, which is why an individual charged with this offense should immediately contact a skilled criminal defense lawyer who regularly defends California drug charges to immediately begin building a defense based on the specific facts of the alleged crime.

Temporary possession of marijuana for disposal is one of the defenses that a savvy attorney might employ in a personal possession case. California courts have held that “possession” means having actual control, care and management over something. Consequently, “control” that is passing, momentary or fleeting will not constitute “legal” possession and therefore, an individual’s temporary possession of marijuana for the sole purpose of disposing of it will not (without more incriminating evidence) be sufficient to sustain a personal possession charge.

It is up to a good criminal attorney to convince the judge and jury that the individual accused of possessing marijuana only did so because he or she was in the process of disposing of it. Examples of situations where this defense has worked include a case where the accused made an immediate statement to the police about his intent to dispose of the drug, a case where the accused was not under the influence of the drug and didn’t display any signs that he had used or sold the drug or was planning on using or selling the drug, a case where the accused discarded the drug because he had a feeling he was being “framed” by an ex-girlfriend, a case where the defendant placed the drugs in his car with the intent of disposing of them after they had been left at his house following a party and a case where the defendant only held the drugs long enough to flush them down the toilet. This defense will obviously only work in certain situations, but a creative attorney may be able to apply it in an unorthodox manner.

It should be noted that this defense does not apply to an individual who, fearing he or she is about to be apprehended, removes marijuana from his or her immediate possession. Because there is such a fine line that separates temporary possession for disposal from this type of scenario, only an experienced drug attorney should attempt to argue this defense, as an inexperienced attorney would likely not fully understand the distinction nor be able to effectively articulate it for a judge or jury.

While it is possible that this defense could apply to a possession of marijuana for sale charge (the most likely case scenario being that an individual was charged with constructive or joint possession of the drug), it would be an unlikely defense, especially if other circumstances (for example, paraphernalia, baggies, scales, etc.) corroborated an intent to sell the drug.

The outstanding criminal attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm specialize in California drug crime defense and know how to convince a judge and jury that momentary possession isn’t sufficiently related to the dangers that a possession charge is designed to punish. They have mastered this area of the law and are better equipped than anyone to defend an individual against a personal possession charge. With law offices throughout California (including several in the Los Angeles area), they are conveniently located for anyone in need of a vigorous defense. For more information about the defenses that apply to a personal possession charge, contact them today for a free consultation.

California PCP charges are extremely serious, and there are a number of sentencing enhancements that can substantially increase your potential punishment. One possible sentencing enhancement that can be filed against you in a California PCP case is for prior convictions.

You can’t be punished for any type of sentencing enhancement, including prior convictions, unless you’re convicted of the underlying drug charges.

These are the possible sentencing enhancements that can be filed for prior convictions in a California PCP case:

Code Section Enhancement Punishment 11370.2.b New 182.1, 11378.5, 11379.5, 11379.6, 11380.5 or 11383 with prior 11351, 11351.5, 11352, 11378, 11378.5, 11379, 11379.5, 11379.6, 11380, 11380.5 or 11383 Add three years for each prior conviction PC 667.5b For each prior prison commitment
(unless after release the defendant remained free of both prison and felony convictions for five years)

Add one year
11366.5c Prior 11366.5a with new 11366.5a 2-3-4

In addition to sentencing enhancements for priors, the prosecutor in a California PCP case can also file enhancements for weight, firearms, locations and minors.

A California PCP case with sentencing enhancements for prior convictions can result in years in prison, so it’s critical to mount an aggressive defense to these charges. Knowledgeable California drug lawyers from The Kavinoky Law Firm will do everything possible to help you avoid the substantial repercussions of a PCP charge. Please contact a skilled California drug attorney today at 1.800.NO.CUFFS for a free consultation.

Every person who plants, cultivates, harvests, dries or processes any marijuana or any part thereof is guilty of a felony offense in California, which is punishable by sixteen months or two or three years in the state prison, unless one can prevail at a Williamson hearing, showing that the cultivation was for personal use, which may entitle the individual to diversion instead. Because the penalties can be severe for an individual convicted of this offense, it is critical that the accused contacts a skilled California drug attorney immediately upon his or her arrest who can begin building an aggressive defense.

“Cultivating” means fostering the growth of the marijuana. Cultivating marijuana is considered a continuing offense, in that it continues at least during the period of cultivation, so one need not be physically present at the site of cultivation to be guilty of this offense. “Harvesting” means gathering the crops of the marijuana. “Processing” means changing the form of the marijuana plant to make it useful for smoking or other narcotic purposes. If it is proven that an individual participated in one of these activities (or that he or she planted or dried marijuana) and that he or she knew it was a marijuana plant or some part of a marijuana plant, he or she may be convicted of this offense.

There are a number of defenses that apply to this crime that an experienced criminal defense lawyer is familiar with and knows how to effectively convey to a judge and jury. The outstanding attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm have mastered this area of the law and know how to meticulously review a case to spot these defenses as well as the other issues that may raise concerns about the legitimacy of their client’s arrest.

Some of the most common defenses to cultivating marijuana include lack of knowledge, a medical marijuana exemption and illegal search and seizure. These are only a sample of some of the defenses that are applicable to this charge – a seasoned criminal attorney will know a variety of additional defenses that he or she may choose to employ based on the facts of each individual’s case.

Lack of knowledge might come into play if the marijuana plants were growing outside or were tucked away in an otherwise unused part of the property and the accused was unaware of the plant’s presence or species. This may be the case where an individual is renting a property, unaware of what a previous tenant was growing or may apply to a family member who was growing the drug without the knowledge of others who also resided on the property. Once again, this is just an example of when this defense might apply – a savvy attorney will know if this defense will work when he or she reviews one’s specific case. It should be noted that an owner of land may be charged as an aider and abettor for marijuana cultivation if he or she had knowledge of the plant’s presence.

A medical marijuana defense may be argued in situations where a patient or a patient’s caregiver has received a recommendation from a doctor stating that marijuana use would benefit the patient’s health. Using, cultivating and transporting marijuana are permitted under these circumstances, as long as the individual participating in these activities abides by the laws that regulate such uses.

A practiced criminal attorney will always scrutinize a case for any illegal search and seizure issues, as this type of defense is the most successful in having one’s case dismissed. Whether the police had a warrant, whether the warrant was based on legitimate information and whether there was sufficient probable cause to support the search are all issues that the defense attorney will consider when building a defense.

The exceptional attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm are here to help. They specialize in California’s drug laws and the defenses that apply to these laws and know what it takes to win. Contact them today for a free case evaluation and for unparalleled representation.

Minors and California Methamphetamine Cases

Certain factors called sentencing enhancements can be added to California methamphetamine cases that can add years to the potential sentence. The involvement or presence of minors is one sentencing enhancement that can be filed in a meth case.

Because the repercussions of a California methamphetamine charge are so severe, it’s imperative to have a skilled attorney on your side. A knowledgeable California drug lawyer from The Kavinoky Law Firm thoroughly understands the complexities of a methamphetamine charge and will aggressively defend you against both the underlying charges and any sentencing enhancements.

A prosecutor must prove both the underlying drug charge and any sentencing enhancements beyond a reasonable doubt in order for you to receive the additional punishment. If you aren’t convicted of the underlying charge, you cannot be punished for the sentencing enhancement.

California sentencing guidelines spell out a lower term, a middle term and an upper term for certain offenses. The sentence that is meted out depends on aggravating and mitigating factors — information that prompts the judge to treat you more harshly or leniently — and the facts of each case. The sentence for each offense or enhancement is spelled out in months or years in prison.

The California Health and Safety Code allows for the following sentencing enhancements to be filed in methamphetamine cases involving minors:

* 11380 — Utilizing, soliciting, furnishing a minor re: methamphetamine — 3-6-9
* 11379.7 — Manufacturing methamphetamine (H&S 11379.6) or possession of precursor chemicals with intent to manufacture (H&S 11383) with a child under 16 present, add two years. If a child under 16 suffers great bodily injury during the commission of these offenses, add five years.

California methamphetamine charges involving minors can bring sentencing enhancements that add years to a prison commitment, so it’s critical to aggressively fight both the underlying drug charge and any enhancements.

An experienced California drug defense lawyer from The Kavinoky Law Firm can thoroughly review your methamphetamine case and help you determine your next step. Please contact a skilled defense attorney today at 1.800.NO.CUFFS for a free consultation.

A civil judicial forfeiture proceeding is one type of asset forfeiture proceeding that an individual who has been involved in illegal marijuana-related activities may face. Asset forfeiture proceedings involve the government seizing an individual’s property (without offering compensation) that it believes is “reasonably connected” to the criminal activity, either as an aid in the activity or as a profit from the activity. A civil judicial forfeiture proceeding may be presented to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in one of three ways: by the seizing agency because the property seized must be forfeited judicially (as opposed to non-judicially), by the seizing agency because a claim and cost bond (an instrument used to contest an administrative forfeiture, which is a type of non-judicial forfeiture proceeding) has been filed for the property in an administrative forfeiture proceeding or prior to seizure if the investigating agency thinks that it must first obtain a warrant before seizing the property. There are certain rules that the seizing or investigating agency must follow when initiating this type of claim as well as certain rules that the U.S. Attorney must then follow when considering whether to proceed with the forfeiture, which is why it is so important for an individual accused of any marijuana-related offense to contact the skilled California criminal attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm who have an in-depth understanding of the rules and regulations that are involved in asset forfeiture and who therefore know how to best protect their client’s rights and assets.

Civil judicial forfeiture proceedings involve property that may not be forfeited non-judicially. This type of property, as it pertains to marijuana or other drug-related activities, may therefore include: (1) property that exceeds $500,000 in value and which is forfeitable pursuant to U.S. Customs procedures and is not a transporting vehicle (for marijuana, for example), an item that has been illegally imported or a monetary instrument (that is, any domestic or foreign money, traveler’s checks, stocks, checks, bank notes and money orders), (2) property that is forfeitable pursuant to IRS procedures that exceeds $100,000, (3) all real property (homes, buildings, etc.) regardless of its value, (4) all property that is lawfully forfeitable but doesn’t incorporate Customs laws or the Internal Revenue Code and (5) all property that has been contested by a claim and cost bond (which, again, is an instrument used to contest an administrative, non-judicial forfeiture proceeding).

When a complaint for a civil forfeiture is filed, the complaint must articulate exactly what property is being sought and how it is reasonably connected to the alleged illegal marijuana-related activity so that the property owner is able to immediately begin an investigation into the facts and is able to respond appropriately. The complaint should therefore contain the basis for the court’s jurisdiction (that is, the basis for the court’s authority), a description of the property, the place and date of the seizure, the seizing agency and the circumstances that justify the forfeiture. If these items aren’t specifically addressed or if the proper notice requirements aren’t given to the property owner, he or she may be entitled to either have the property returned or to be compensated for its value.

Defenses to a civil judicial forfeiture are numerous but only an experienced attorney will know when, which and how to most effectively present them. Examples include situations where the underlying crime that serves as the basis for the forfeiture never occurred, that all or part of the seized property had an independent innocent source and wasn’t used illegally, that “clean” money has been commingled with “dirty” money and that the clean money shouldn’t be subject to forfeiture or that the owner is an “innocent owner” and didn’t know about or had nothing to do with the illegal acts that gave rise to the forfeiture.

Civil judicial forfeiture proceedings are clearly technical and complex and require the skill of a qualified lawyer. For more information on asset forfeiture and to retain the best representation, contact the outstanding attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm today for a free consultation.

RICO Laws

There are a variety of laws that regulate and punish illegal marijuana-related activities. For example, local, state and federal authorities may use felony conspiracy laws to prosecute suspected persons and their business associates who knowingly participate in a scheme designed to violate the law, even if one of the suspected individual’s didn’t have any direct involvement in the manufacture or distribution of the marijuana. There are even specific federal variations on conspiracy laws that charge those who are suspected of participating in marijuana trafficking operations with the operation of a continuing criminal enterprise or with violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

Federal and state racketeering (that is, carrying on illegal business activities that involve crimes), profiteering, and RICO (Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organization) laws make it illegal for criminal organizations to profit from any otherwise legitimate business operations. Violations of these laws typically lead to the confiscation and seizure of the criminal organization’s legitimate enterprise assets and are typically used against known “organized crime” groups. The goal of these laws is to financially cripple the suspected operation by cutting off the sources of cash that support its ongoing criminal activity.

These RICO laws apply to the commission of two or more specific offenses that constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity” or to the collection of an “unlawful debt”. A “pattern of racketeering activity” requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, one of which occurred after October 5, 1970, and the last of which occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity. “Unlawful debt” refers to debts that were incurred as a result of gambling activity. As a result, marijuana-related activities are usually prosecuted under RICO’s “pattern of racketeering activity’s” provisions.

RICO laws (as they apply to marijuana-related offenses) hold that it is illegal for anyone to receive any income from a pattern of racketeering activity or to use or invest any part of that income in the acquisition of any interest in or the establishment or operation of any enterprise which is engaged in or affects the activities of interstate or foreign commerce. The laws also hold that it is similarly illegal for anyone to acquire or maintain interest in such an enterprise or for an employee or associate of such an enterprise to conduct or participate in the conduct of that enterprise. Conspiring to violate any of these laws is also illegal under RICO.

Criminal penalties that face an individual convicted under RICO laws include substantial fines and a maximum 20 year prison sentence. In addition, the individual will be required to forfeit any interest in the enterprise and any property constituting or derived from any proceeds obtained from the racketeering activity. This property includes real property, tangible and intangible personal property and all rights, title and interest in any such property, regardless of its location. A temporary restraining order may also be filed by the government without notice or a hearing if no criminal charges have yet been filed against the property owner if the government demonstrates that there is reason to believe that the desired property would, in the event of a conviction, be subject to forfeiture and that giving notice will jeopardize the availability of the property for forfeiture.

Civil penalties that may be issued against an individual convicted of a RICO violation include orders to divest of any interest in any enterprise, restrictions on the individual’s future activities, orders to dissolve or reorganize the guilty enterprise and restitution to innocent parties. It should also be noted that a criminal conviction under these laws will prevent the accused from denying the allegations in a subsequent civil proceeding.

The rules that regulate RICO laws are specific and technical, which is why it is critical that an individual charged with a RICO violation immediately contacts an attorney who is well-versed in this area of the law. To learn more, contact the outstanding criminal attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm today for a free consultation.

Personal possession – types of possession

Possession of marijuana, also known as possession of marijuana for personal use, may be charged as either a misdemeanor or as a felony offense in California, depending on the quantity and type of the marijuana. The offense is proven if the prosecution can show that the accused exercised dominion and control over the marijuana, that he or she had knowledge of its presence and that he or she had knowledge of its narcotic character. “Dominion and control” refers specifically to how the accused possessed the marijuana, which can be established through physical (or actual) possession, constructive possession or joint possession, all of which may be proven through circumstantial evidence (that is, evidence that isn’t directly observed but is inferred from events or circumstances that surround it). It should be noted that whether the marijuana was actually “owned” by the accused is not the pivotal issue – the critical issue is whether or not he or she had “possession” of it. An experienced criminal defense lawyer who specializes in California drug crimes will have an in-depth understanding of these different types of possession and will further know how to successfully challenge them.

Physical (or actual) possession of marijuana for personal use refers to situations where the accused knowingly had the marijuana on his or her person. A person having a baggie of marijuana or a joint in his or her pocket would be examples of physical possession. Although there are many defenses that may apply to this type of possession, including medical marijuana use, temporary possession for disposal and illegal search and seizure, only a skilled California drug attorney will know how to effectively persuade a judge and jurors that they are legitimate under these circumstances.

Constructive possession of marijuana for personal use refers to situations where the marijuana was immediately accessible by the accused and he or she either had direct exercise and control over the drug or the right to control the drug (or the place in which it was found) either personally or through another person or persons. This type of possession would apply, for example, if a driver was stopped and marijuana was found in the center console of the car. While the driver wasn’t in actual or physical control of the drug, he or she could still legally be charged with possession, because one could infer that he or she knew the whereabouts of the drug and had the ability to access and control it. Lack of knowledge and illegal search and seizure will be the most likely defenses to a constructive possession case.

Joint control or possession of marijuana for personal use refers to situations where two or more people may possess the marijuana. An example of this is found in a case where an officer witnessed a group of men huddled together in an area known to be a hangout for marijuana smokers. When he approached, a paper sack containing marijuana was thrown into the air and the group scattered. Joint possession allowed the officer to reasonably conclude that the marijuana was commonly possessed by all members of the group. Entrapment, illegal search and seizure, lack of knowledge and temporary possession for disposal might be the defenses that would be argued against a joint possession offense.

In addition to those noted above, a criminal lawyer who regularly practices California drug crime defense will be readily familiar with all of the defenses that are applicable to “possession of marijuana for personal use” cases. To avoid the consequences that this offense carries, it is imperative for an individual accused of personal possession to hire a qualified attorney, seasoned in this technical and complex area of the law. The exceptional attorneys at The Kavinoky Law Firm stay on top of California’s drug laws. They receive ongoing education and training in everything related to drug offenses and are well prepared to effectively tackle any issue that comes their way. Contact them today for a free consultation and for the best representation.