Chicago, IL criminal defense attorney Gal Pissetzky discusses the possible defenses he might argue in a drug case? In drug cases, similar to others, the initial focus lies in determining whether there exists a constitutional basis to challenge the initial seizure of drugs or the client. The attorney, in the third person, examines whether law enforcement violated any constitutional rights during the arrest, potentially compromising evidence intended for trial.

For example, when a client is stopped while driving, the attorney assesses whether the officers had probable cause to initiate the stop, arrest the client, and subsequently search the car. The first step involves scrutinizing the pre-trial legality of the seizure, arrest, and confiscation of evidence from the client, typically through Fourth Amendment challenges.

Once the legality of the pre-trial actions is established, the attorney, in the third person, explores potential trial defenses. Recognizing the uniqueness of each case, the attorney delves into the specifics of the facts at hand. In general terms, the attorney, in the third person, scrutinizes whether the state can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the client had actual possession, intent to possess, and knowledge of the drugs. Notably, every case presents distinct facts, requiring a tailored defense strategy.

In scenarios where drugs are found in proximity to multiple individuals, such as in a car or a shared residence, the attorney strategically questions how the prosecution can connect the client to the drugs. The central focus, in the third person, is on challenging the prosecutor’s ability to establish that the client had knowledge of the presence of drugs, particularly in cases where the client may not have been aware of the drugs or the specific circumstances.

In essence, the attorney, in the third person, highlights the prosecutor’s burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing the need to demonstrate the client’s intent, knowledge, and possession in drug cases.