Florida Drug Law Declared Unconstitutional

           In the case Mackle Vincent Shelton versus the Secretary of the Florida Department of CorrectionsUnited States District Judge Mary Scriven ruled that one of Florida's drug laws is unconstitutional because:

 

          1.  It does not require prosecutors to prove that someone accused of violating that law knew that the controlled substance he had in his possession was illegal; and

 

          2.  It is a strict-liability crime which does not meet the constitutional requirements necessary for such a crime.

 

          Regarding point number 1, it is generally the case in the United States that someone cannot be convicted of a crime unless he knows that what he was doing was illegal when he did it.  However, in 2002 the Florida Legislature passed a law which eliminated the requirement that someone charged with possessing an illegal controlled substance know that the substance in his possession is illegal.  Thus, if a college student in Florida were, for example, to put some cocaine into another student's book bag, that other student could be convicted of possessing cocaine even though he did not know that it was cocaine that had been put into his bag.

 

          Regarding point number 2, a strict-liability crime is one for which someone can be convicted even though she is ignorant of the fact that what she is doing is illegal when she is doing it.  But in order for a strict-liability crime to be constitutional, it must meet each of the following three requirements:

 

          a.  The penalty imposed must be slight;

 

          b.  A conviction does not result in substantial social stigma; and

 

          c.  Such a law must regulate inherently dangerous conduct.

 

          Regarding point "a," the penalty for violating Florida's drug law is not slight.  For example, someone convicted of delivering a controlled substance could be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison.

 

          Regarding point "b," Judge Scriven stated that "[t]he label of 'convicted felon' combined with a proclamation that the defendant is so vile that he must be separated from society for fifteen to thirty years, creates irreparable damage to the defendant's reputation and standing in the community.  This social stigma precludes, for example, the ability of a convicted felon to reside in any neighborhood of his choosing or to obtain certain employment."

 

          Regarding point "c," Judge Scriven observed that "there is a long tradition throughout human existence of lawful delivery and transfer of containers that might contain substances under innumerable facts and circumstances:  carrying luggage on and off of public transportation; carrying bags in and out of stores and buildings; carrying book bags and purses in schools and places of business and work; transporting boxes via commercial transportation . . . .  Under Florida's statute, that conduct is rendered immediately criminal if it turns out that the substance is a controlled substance, without regard to the deliverer's knowledge or intent."

 

          Based upon the ruling in the Shelton case, criminal-defense lawyers throughout Florida are already filing motions asking judges to declare Florida's drug laws unconstitutional.

19 Types of Drug Paraphernalia in Florida

According to Florida law, the term "drug paraphernalia" includes many different types of devices that can be used to consume or to make controlled substances such as cocaine, marijuana, and hashish.  This article contains a list of 19 such devices.

1.  Scales and balances used to weigh or measure controlled substances.

2.  Blenders, bowls, spoons, and mixing devices used to make controlled substances.

3.  Capsules, balloons, and envelopes that are used for packaging small amounts of controlled substances.

4.  Syringes and needles that are used to inject controlled substances into the human body.

Objects used or designed for use in ingesting or inhaling controlled substances into the human body including:

5.  Metal or wooden pipes.

6.  Water pipes.

7.  Smoking masks.

8.  Roach clips.

9.  Miniature cocaine spoons.

10.  Carburetor pipes.

11.  Electric pipes.

12.  Air-driven pipes.

13.  Bongs.

14.  A "cracker" which is a small metal or plastic device that contains a pin that may be used to expel nitrous oxide from a container.

15.  A "whip-it" which is a device that may be used to expel nitrous oxide.

16.  A tank.

17.  A hose or tube.

18.  A 2-liter-type soda bottle.

19.  Duct tape.

Given the fact that I drink quite a bit of soda from 2-liter soda bottles, number 18 on the list causes me a little concern.

Drugs in Automobiles: Who's Guilty?

When the police search a car and find drugs such as marijuana or cocaine, the person located closest to the drugs is often arrested even though there were other people located in the automobile just before the car was searched.  In that situation, the person who was arrested may well have a good argument that he is not guilty of possessing the narcotics if the prosecutor is unable to prove that he was in "constructive possession" of the drugs.

In order to prove that someone is in constructive possession of narcotics, a prosecutor in Florida must show that the accused individual:

1.  Had dominion and control over the drugs;

2.  Knew of its presence;

3.  Had the ability to maintain control over the narcotics; and

4.  Had knowledge of its illicit nature.

When drugs are found in a car containing more than one person, a jury is not permitted to simply infer that the accused individual knew about the presence of the narcotics nor is it permitted to infer that he had the ability to maintain control over the drugs.  Instead, the prosecution is required to present independent evidence that the individual knew about the presence of the narcotics and that he had the ability to maintain control over them.  Such evidence might consist of statements made by the accused to the police or evidence that that individual's DNA or fingerprints were located on the drugs.  But unless such evidence is presented at trial, the accused individual should be found not guilty.