While Colorado has more liberal drug and narcotics statutes than many other states, the ramifications of a drug conviction here can still have severe life impacts. Besides the obvious effects such as possible prison time and stiff financial penalties, a drug conviction can affect an individual’s possible future employment, eligibility for public housing assistance[i], and ability to own and possess a firearm.[ii] Therefore, being charged with a drug crime is not a matter to be taken lightly.
Good Colorado criminal attorneys know there are multiple defenses an accused person can put forward to challenge drug charges. Attacking the prosecution’s case from its outset and mounting defenses at all relevant stages afford a defendant the best chance of getting a successful resolution to the matter.
Challenging the state’s evidence begins right at the beginning of the case. It involves gathering all of the prosecution’s evidence (what is commonly called “discovery”), examining body worn camera evidence for statements made by police, the defendant and witnesses, ensuring that law enforcement has taken all necessary steps to ensure a proper and lawful arrest, and making sure the prosecution meets all necessary deadlines set by the court.
From the prosecution’s discovery, good defense attorneys mount attacks against the state’s case through filing motions to suppress. Typically, drug cases arise from two types of citizen – police encounters: pat downs or body searches, and traffic stops. In the context of body searches, for example, a pat down search can be conducted by consent[iii], for officer safety to discover weapons[iv], and pursuant to an arrest.[v] When looking inside an automobile, police must have probable cause to believe it contains contraband to conduct a warrantless search.[vi] Alternatively, law enforcement may conduct an inventory search of a vehicle when a driver is arrested and will remain in police custody while the vehicle is impounded.[vii]
Additionally, law enforcement can search a car if an officer believes it contains a weapon and the suspect could be armed and dangerous.[viii] However, overriding any search (including the ones listed above) is something called “reasonableness” – any search under the Fourth Amendment must be reasonable.[ix] Good defense attorneys know how to apply the facts of a situation to a police officer’s search and argue that the search was unreasonable.
Good defense attorneys also know how to sew reasonable doubt into a juror’s mind should the drug case proceed to trial. For instance, if an accused person was arrested for a narcotics offense because police found the drugs during a vehicle search where multiple car occupants were present, a good advocate will argue that any of the other individuals in the automobile may have possessed them and the police simply arrested the wrong person. Remember: it only takes one convinced juror out of twelve to vote “not guilty” to ensure that the defendant is not convicted.
Effective Colorado defense lawyers also know the alternatives to conviction and sentence for drug clients, and vigorously advocate for a defendant’s entry into these. Examples include drug diversion courts and pre-trial diversion programs[x], deferred judgment options[xi], and drug treatment in lieu of conviction.[xii] Obviously, there are certain important factors that influence whether a defendant is picked to enter one of these options. A person arrested with a small amount of narcotics intended for personal use has a much greater chance of selection into an alternative sentencing program versus an individual who was found in possession of a large amount of drugs, which indicates trafficking.
In any event, a good defense lawyer will know how to advocate for the accused and influence both the court and the prosecuting attorney to approve him of her for entry into an alternative sentence. That is precisely the type of experience that Mile High Legal has. If you are facing a drug charge in Colorado, contact our offices and let us help you navigate this challenging and difficult situation.
[i] See, e.g., 24 CFR § 960.204
[ii] 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
[iii] People v. Marujo, 192 P.3d 1003, 1008 (Colo. 2009)
[iv] People v. Ratcliff, 778 P.2d 1371, 1380 (Colo. 1989)
[v] People v. Bland, 884 P.2d 312, 320 (Colo. 1994)
[vi] People v. Romero, 767 P.2d 1225, 1227-28 (Colo. 1989)
[vii] People v. Allen, 2019 CO 88, ¶ 19
[viii] People v. Delacruz, 2016 CO 76, ¶ 14
[ix] Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006)
[x] § 18-1.3-101, C.R.S.
[xi] § 18-1.3-102, C.R.S.
[xii] § 18-1.3-101, C.R.S.
