We provide specialized winterization services to safeguard your pool during the off-season, and when spring arrives, we handle the thorough opening process.
We provide specialized winterization services to safeguard your pool during the off-season, and when spring arrives, we handle the thorough opening process.
Possession of a controlled substance is one of the most frequently charged drug offenses in Missouri, but it is also one of the most aggressively overcharged and misunderstood. These cases often arise from traffic stops, vehicle searches, probation contacts, or investigations that began for entirely unrelated reasons. What appears on paper to be a simple possession case is often built on questionable police conduct, unconstitutional searches, and assumptions that do not withstand scrutiny.
A possession charge is not minor simply because the amount involved is small. In Missouri, possession of many controlled substances is charged as a felony, carrying jail or prison exposure, probation with strict conditions, and long-term consequences that follow a person long after the case ends. Early legal intervention is often the difference between a conviction and a dismissal.
Drug possession cases are won or lost on details. The legality of the stop, the duration of detention, the justification for a search, and the way evidence is documented are often more important than the substance itself. These cases require careful analysis of police conduct, not blind acceptance of reports.
Attorney Thomas Kissell has defended possession of controlled substance cases across Missouri involving traffic stops, vehicle searches, alleged constructive possession, and searches conducted under questionable circumstances. Many of these cases turn on constitutional violations that are not obvious until video footage, dispatch records, and electronic data are reviewed.
The earlier that analysis begins, the more options exist to control the outcome.
RSMo 579.015
Possession of a controlled substance is governed by Section 579.015 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. Under this statute, a person commits the offense of possession if he or she knowingly or intentionally possesses a controlled substance, unless the substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or other lawful authorization.
The statute does not require ownership. It does not require drugs to be found in a person’s hand or pocket. Prosecutors often rely on theories of actual possession, constructive possession, or joint possession to support charges.
Presence alone is not enough, but that does not stop possession charges from being filed.
Missouri recognizes several forms of possession. Actual possession involves physical control over a substance. Constructive possession involves allegations that a person had knowledge of and control over a substance, even if it was not on their person. Joint possession involves allegations that multiple people shared access or control.
Constructive possession cases are common and frequently overused. These cases often rely on proximity, assumptions, or association rather than direct evidence. Vehicles, shared residences, and borrowed property are frequent settings for disputed possession allegations.
The state must still prove knowledge and control beyond a reasonable doubt.
Missouri law criminalizes possession of substances classified in various schedules, including but not limited to methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, unauthorized prescription medications, counterfeit substances, and certain synthetic drugs. The type of substance alleged plays a significant role in charging decisions, bond conditions, and sentencing exposure.
Prescription drug cases are especially nuanced. Possessing medication without a valid prescription can result in criminal charges, but these cases often involve misunderstandings, old prescriptions, family members’ medications, or incomplete documentation. They require careful factual review.
Possession of a controlled substance is commonly charged as a felony in Missouri. Penalties can include incarceration, probation with strict conditions, mandatory drug treatment, fines, driver’s license consequences, and a permanent criminal record. Sentencing exposure depends on the substance involved, the quantity, and prior criminal history.
Even when probation is available, conditions are often intrusive and unforgiving. Violations can result in incarceration.
A large percentage of possession cases begin with a traffic stop. Because of that, the legality of the stop itself is often the most important issue in the case. Law enforcement must have a lawful basis supported by specific, articulable facts to initiate a stop.
Stops based on vague suspicion, incorrect interpretations of traffic laws, or pretextual reasoning unsupported by facts are frequently challenged successfully. If the stop is unlawful, everything that follows may be suppressed.
Even when a traffic stop is initially lawful, officers are not permitted to prolong the stop beyond the time reasonably required to complete its original purpose. Drug investigations often cross this constitutional line.
Delays caused by unrelated questioning, waiting for a K9 unit without independent justification, or fishing for consent after the mission of the stop is complete can render the detention unlawful. Once the lawful purpose of the stop ends, continued detention requires new, articulable facts.
Prolonged stops are among the most common grounds for suppression in Missouri drug cases.
K9 deployments are frequently used to justify vehicle searches, but they are not immune from challenge. Issues often arise when a K9 is deployed after an unlawful prolongation of a stop, when alerts are ambiguous or handler-driven, or when training and certification records reveal reliability problems.
Body-worn camera footage often tells a different story than police reports regarding alleged alerts. Timing, handler cues, and inconsistent behavior matter. A claimed alert does not automatically make a search lawful.
Many possession cases involve searches that exceed constitutional limits. Consent searches are particularly problematic. Consent must be voluntary and free from coercion. Silence, hesitation, or submission to authority does not equal valid consent.
Searches that exceed the scope of consent, lack probable cause, or rely on misrepresentation are routinely challenged. Vehicle searches, container searches, and searches of passengers often involve overreach.
Video evidence is often the most powerful evidence in a possession case. Body-worn cameras, dash cameras, and surveillance footage frequently contradict written police reports. Timing, tone, and officer conduct often look very different on video than on paper.
Dispatch records, call logs, and CAD data provide objective timelines that can expose unlawful delays or mischaracterized events. FLOCK cameras and license plate readers increasingly appear in drug cases and must be analyzed carefully for legality, accuracy, and relevance.
Police reports are summaries written after the fact. They are not neutral and they are not complete.
Many possession cases rely on constructive possession theories that stretch the law. Being present where drugs are found is not enough. Being near contraband is not the same as possessing it. Association with others is not proof of knowledge or control.
These cases often rise or fall on whether the state can bridge the gap between presence and possession with credible evidence.
Effective defense in possession cases focuses on constitutional violations, evidentiary weaknesses, and statutory elements. Suppression of evidence obtained through illegal stops, unlawful detention, improper K9 searches, or unconstitutional searches is often the primary objective.
These cases are won through preparation, evidence review, and early motion practice, not explanation or cooperation with law enforcement.
If you are arrested or under investigation for possession of a controlled substance, do not consent to searches, do not explain ownership, and do not make statements to law enforcement. Do not assume the charge is minor or automatic.
Early decisions in possession cases often determine whether the case survives.
Attorney Thomas Kissell of Kissell Law Group defends individuals charged with possession of a controlled substance across Missouri. These cases require careful constitutional analysis, early evidence preservation, and aggressive defense.
If you are facing drug possession charges, probation consequences, or felony exposure, early legal representation matters.
All consultations are confidential and judgment-free.
Contact Kissell Law Group today to protect your future.