Our criminal defense lawyers recently defended a client who had been pulled over by police officers for not wearing his seat belt. Once police approached the car, they allegedly smelled marijuana so they began pulling the occupants out of the car to search them and the inside the car. A search of the car allegedly turned up various drug paraphernalia, an ounce of marijuana and several cartridges of THC. Based on the search and subsequent investigation, the police alleged that the drug paraphernalia which was found in the center console belonged to our client as well as several of the cartridges found inside a backpack in the backseat. Based on the circumstances, our client was charged with Possession of Marijuana under 50 Grams and Drug Paraphernalia and ordered to appear in municipal court to face his charges.
After speaking with our client, it became evident that he could not plead guilty to any form of criminal charges or even take a conditional discharge to have the case dismissed after probation. This was because, although our client had no prior record, he had a very serious federal criminal case currently pending out-of-state and any conviction or diversion program could drastically affect his potential sentence and outcome. So our marijuana defense lawyers began challenging the state’s case against our which including making various discovery demands and motions and even having the judge sign an order that could potentially bar harmful evidence from being used against our client to prove him guilty. In the end, we were able to successfully the challenge the prosecutor’s case and convince the judge to dismiss the marijuana charges and downgrade the paraphernalia to a township ordinance which is only punishable by a small fine and did not result in a criminal conviction. If you would like to learn more about how our attorneys could potentially help you or your loved one like the case above, give us a call today for a free consultation at (848) 238-2100 and speak with an experienced marijuana defense attorney.
State vs. R.A. decided September 21, 2017
