Utah Criminal Defense Lawyer in Salt Lake - A Proven Record of Results
Can I be charged with drug possession if someone else took the blame?Under Utah criminal law, it is possible for two people to be charged possessing the same drugs. It is possible, even if one person takes responsibility or claims ownership of the drugs, for another person also to be charged with possession of a controlled substance. If you are facing criminal drug charges, an experienced Utah criminal defense attorney can ensure that your rights are protected. Stephen Howard has defended Utah drug charges ranging from first-degree felony distribution to misdemeanor marijuana possession charges. Contact us today for an initial consultation.
Utah Drug Possession Law - Active v. Constructive PossessionUtah law relating to drug possession involves two different kinds of possession: "actual" possession and "constructive" possession. Both kinds of possession carry the same potential consequences under Utah law. "Actual" possession is a relatively straightforward concept - someone has actual possession of drugs, in their hand, in their pants pocket, etc. Laws relating to constructive possession are more complicated, and can result in multiple individuals being charged with possession of the same drugs.
A person is considered to be in constructive possession of a controlled substance under Utah law if the person knows of the drugs, has both the ability and the intent to exercise control over the drugs. Because it is possible for two people to have both the ability and the intent to exercise control over the same item, two different people can both be charged with possessing the same drugs. Consider the following hypothetical examples:
Suppose that a police officer stops a vehicle for a traffic violation. The occupants of the vehicle are the driver/owner and a passenger in the front seat. During a search of the vehicle (assume for purposes of this example that the officer had sufficient probable cause or reasonable suspicion to justify the search), the officer finds a small bag of marijuana under the front passenger seat. Suppose next that the driver/owner of the vehicle tells the officer that he is aware of the marijuana in the back seat, and intends to smoke it when he gets home. The passenger invokes his right to remain silent and says nothing about the marijuana. The officer would likely charge the driver of the vehicle with possession of marijuana, even though the officer never observed the driver in actual possession of the marijuana.
Assume the same set of facts, but this time the passenger admits that he knows about the marijuana and that he intended to smoke it when he got home. This time, the driver invokes his Miranda rights and chooses to remain silent. This time, the police would probably charge the passenger with drug possession under a theory of constructive possession.
Assume now that both the passenger and the driver admitted to the police that they knew about the marijuana and that they intended to split up the stash when they got home. In this situation, both the driver and the passenger could be charged with possession of a controlled substance. (It is also possible that both could be charged with possession with the intent to distribute, based on the argument that splitting the marijuana between the two people constituted "distribution" under Utah law.)
This time, assume that both the passenger and the driver invoked their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and said nothing about the marijuana. This makes a charge of possession difficult to prove against either person. On the one hand, the passenger is sitting immediately above the marijuana. But there is no evidence to indicate he was aware of it's presence or intended to do anything with it. On the other hand, the owner/driver of the vehicle probably has a stronger claim of right to items found in his vehicle. But without any statements or admissions from the owner, it is difficult for a prosecutor to prove that he even knew about the marijuana. In either case, if a jury is left with a reasonable doubt about whether the driver or passenger was aware of and intended to exercise control over the marijuana, a not guilty verdict should be returned.
Consider one final scenario. Again, the police pull a vehicle over for a traffic violation. This time, the officer approaches the vehicle and sees the passenger holding a bag of marijuana in his hand. The passenger is in "actual" possession of the marijuana and could be charged. Next, assume that the driver of the vehicle tells the officer, "Don't charge him, that's my stuff." Now the driver has admitted to constructive possession of the marijuana. Both the driver and the passenger can now be charged with possession of marijuana.
The fact that the driver has claimed responsibility for the drugs does not negate the fact that the passenger was in actual possession of the drugs. If the elements of actual possession or constructive possession can be proven against both people, both can be charged.