Case Study: Possession with Intent to Distribute

The attorneys at Erkan & Sullivan represented a young woman who was accused of having made a drug deal and possessing additional drugs with intent to distribute. The charges were brought by the Lowell police after observing a car pull up to a person the police believed was a drug user and the “user” interact with the person in the car. A short time later the car was stopped, the driver was ordered out of the car, and she was searched where cocaine was found in her waistband. The police report stated that the drug user had told the police that she had purchased cocaine from the driver. The case was handled in the Lowell District Court with officers from the Lowell Police Special Investigations Section as the witnesses.

Motion Issues

Although the police report stated that the officers had observed a drug transaction and the “buyer” told the police about the sale prior to the client’s car being stopped, our attorneys consulted with the client, reviewed the police report meticulously, and conducted our own investigation. There was clearly more to the story.

Punishment

Given the charges, if convicted the punishment for the most serious offense would be two and a half years in jail, although many young offenders receive a period of probation with drug treatment, fines, and conditions.

Motion to Suppress

Our office went on the offensive by filing a motion to suppress the evidence seized by the police. There were four officers who were called as witnesses. This allowed us to ask the drug detectives various questions on cross examination and develop a clear picture of everything that occurred on the day of the arrest. Rather than asking one officer all of the questions, we limited our questioning of each detective so that our strategy would not be revealed to any particular detective. This allowed us to elicit helpful information from each detective without them even knowing they were helping the defense!

What ended up being revealed was that the client’s car was stopped prior to the police ever speaking to the “buyer.” While the police report was technically accurate, its phasing suggested the police knew that a crime was committed before the police stopped the car, rather than after. Without the investigation we conducted, this fact would have allowed the police to go forward with the charges and proceed to trial.

Hearing

After the motion hearing, we argued to the judge that the police lacked the authority to stop the car as they had (1) not witnessed the drug deal; (2) had not spoken to the witness before the stop; and (3) even if they were allowed to stop the car they conducted an improper search of the vehicle and his client.

Result

The judge agreed with our argument and allowed the motion to suppress evidence. The prosecutor, left with no evidence, dismissed all charges against our client. The young woman was able to go on her way, continue her life, and avoid the possibility of a felony conviction on her record.

If you or a loved one is charged with a drug crime, contact drug defense attorneys Murat Erkan and Ryan Sullivan to set up your consultation today.