Jameson Stone Law defends drug charges across Central Pennsylvania, and Ethan Stone leads the criminal work. These cases turn on two things far more often than on the substance itself. Whether the search that produced the evidence was lawful, and whether what you are charged with matches what the Commonwealth can actually prove.
The Line That Matters
Simple possession and possession with intent to deliver sit on either side of the most consequential line in a drug case. Possession is a misdemeanor. Intent to deliver is a felony, and the grading climbs with the quantity involved. Nothing about the substance changes between the two charges. What changes is what the Commonwealth says you meant to do with it.
Intent is almost never proved directly. It is built from quantity, how the substance was packaged, whether scales or baggies were present, cash on hand, and messages on a phone. Every one of those is an inference rather than a fact, and inferences can be argued with. Moving a charge from intent back to possession changes it from a felony to a misdemeanor, and that is frequently the most valuable thing achievable in a drug case.
The Search
Under federal law, police need probable cause to search a car without a warrant and nothing further. Pennsylvania is different. In Commonwealth v. Alexander the Supreme Court held that the state constitution requires probable cause and exigent circumstances together, and that one without the other is not enough. Obtaining a warrant is the default rather than the exception here.
There is a second rule working alongside it. Following the Medical Marijuana Act, the court held in Commonwealth v. Barr that the odor of marijuana alone cannot establish probable cause. It remains one factor among others, but an officer whose entire justification was the smell of it has a real problem in Pennsylvania. Both rules are state constitutional, both go further than federal law, and both are worth checking a search against.
Whose Drugs
Where a substance is found on you, possession is generally straightforward. Where it is found in a car with three people in it, in a shared apartment, or in a place several people had access to, the Commonwealth has to prove something harder. That you knew it was there and had the power and the intention to control it.
That question comes up constantly and it is often the whole case. A passenger charged over something in a glovebox, a tenant charged over something in a common area, a driver charged over something a friend left behind. Proximity gets treated as possession in the charging documents far more readily than it survives being tested, and testing it is a matter of who had access, what was said, and what the file actually establishes.
What We Handle
Personal amounts, including the separate lower charge for a small quantity of marijuana or paraphernalia.
Felony charges where quantity and packaging are being used to establish something more than personal use.
Distribution and cultivation allegations, where the grading rises sharply with the weight the Commonwealth alleges.
Suppression motions on the stop, the search, and the warrant, which frequently decide the whole case.
Our Process
01
Why the vehicle was pulled over, what the officer relied on, and whether the search met the Pennsylvania standard rather than the federal one.
Quantity, packaging, cash, and phone evidence, examined for how much of the felony charge is inference rather than proof.
A motion where the search does not hold, and a reduction in grading where the evidence stands but the intent case does not.
The thing most people want to talk about is what was found. The thing that usually decides the case is how it was found, and whether the charge on the paperwork is the charge the Commonwealth can carry to a verdict. Those are the two questions worth asking early.
Sometimes, but the bar in Pennsylvania is higher than most people assume and higher than it is federally. Under Commonwealth v. Alexander a warrantless vehicle search needs probable cause and exigent circumstances, both of them, and the Pennsylvania Constitution is read as giving greater privacy protection than the Fourth Amendment on this point. Consent and plain view remain separate routes. So the questions are what the officer relied on, whether it amounted to probable cause at all, and whether there was any genuine reason a warrant could not have been obtained. Where the answer to that last one is no, the evidence may be suppressed, and without the evidence there is usually no case.
Not on its own, and this has changed. After the Medical Marijuana Act made lawful possession possible, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held in Commonwealth v. Barr that the odor of marijuana cannot be a stand-alone basis for probable cause. It can still count as one factor in the overall picture, alongside things like an officer’s training, the location, and what was said during the stop. What it cannot do is carry the search by itself. If the report reads as though the smell was the entire justification, that report is worth reading closely.
You can be charged, certainly, and it happens routinely where several people had access to the same space. Being convicted requires more. The Commonwealth has to establish that you knew the substance was there and that you had both the ability and the intention to exercise control over it. Sitting in a car where something was found, or living in a house where something was found, does not satisfy that on its own. These cases turn on access, statements, and what was actually recovered from where, which is exactly the sort of thing that looks weaker in a suppression hearing than it did in an affidavit.
The stop, the search and the paperwork behind them decide most of these cases, and none of that is visible in the summary you were handed. Ethan Stone leads the firm’s criminal work, and the first conversation costs nothing.