{

Proving Possession WithIntent to Deliver

A presentation by Samuel Partida, Jr. www.PartidaFTP.com

Partida

for the

People

{

Proving Possession WithIntent to Deliver

Samuel Partida, Jr. is

Partida

fro the

People

www.PartidaFTP.com

This material on the criminal law is

intended to provide a general

background of knowledge. Nothing

in this material establishes a

lawyer-client relationship.

2© 2014 Partida for the People. All rights reserved.

You should always consult with

an attorney in a private session

before taking any action on any

information I have provided.

Weight or Amount …………………………………………………………………..6

Purity…………………………………………………………….……………………….7

Cutting Agent…………………………………………………………………………8

Packaging……………………………………………………………………………...9

Packaging Items…………………………………………………………………...10

Items for Distribution……………………………………………………..………11

Items for Security…………………………………………………………...……..12

Drug Combinations…………………………………………………………….......13

No Paraphernalia…………………………………………………………………...14

High Crime Area………………..…………………………………………………...15

Prior Deliveries ……………………..……………….……………………………...16

Statements……………..…………………………………………………………...17

Table of Contents

3

{

Proving Possession With Intent to Deliver

www.PartidaFTP.com

Intent to deliver a controlled substance is generally inferred circumstantially on a case by case basis. People v Greenleaf, 254 Ill. App. 3d 585 (1st Dist. 1993). For small amounts, at least one additional factor must be present consistent with delivery. People v. Delgado, 256 Ill. App. 3d 119 (1st

Dist. 1993). No single factor is dispositive.

NO SINGLE FACTOR DISPOSITIVE

Just twice the amount of "normal" use may be enough to prove possession with intent to deliver. See People v. Robinson, 233 Ill. App. 3d 278 (3rd

Dist. 1992); People v. Walensky, 286 Ill. App. 3d 82 (1st Dist. 1996).

WEIGHT OR AMOUNT

The less pure the drugs found, the farther down on the distribution chain. So, users usually are buying impure dosages for personal use. A drug bust yielding high purity drugs, can mean a drug distributor has been busted. See People v. Torres, 200 Ill. App. 3d 253 (2nd Dist. 1990).

PURITY

Dealers can sell more product if the can "cut" their supply. This just means mixing it with other chemicals to sell more volume. This reduces the purity of the drugs. A user usually won't "cut" his own drugs because users are looking for a more intense "high". So, the presence of cutting agents (usually a vitamin of some sort) with the drugs is consistent with a dealer. See People v. Romero, 189 Ill. App. 3d 749 (2nd Dist. 1989).

CUTTING AGENT

When the drugs are divided up into smaller baggies, that is consistent with selling. However, this factor is strongest when it can be proven that the arrested person is the one who packaged the drugs. See People v. Romero, 189 Ill. App. 3d 749 (2nd Dist. 1989); People v. Tolliver, 347 Ill. App. 3d 203 (1st Dist. 2004).

PACKAGING

If the drugs are not divided up yet, then the mere presence of the items or tools used for packaging is a strong factor of possession with intent to deliver. This could include scales, plastic baggies, tie twistiness, cutting agents, ect… See People v. Romero, 189 Ill. App. 3d 749 (2nd Dist. 1989); People v. Tolliver, 347 Ill. App. 3d 203 (1st Dist. 2004).

PACKAGING ITEMSBaggies, twisties, cutting agents

Anything found near the drugs or on the person arrested that is consistent with dealing can be used in court. These items can include beepers, cell phones, ledgers, list of buyers, cash, and anything else. See People v. Witherspoon, 216 Ill. App. 3d 323 (1st Dist. 1991); People v. Baez, 206 Ill. App. 3d 410 (3rd Dist. 1990).

ITEMS FOR DISTRIBUTIONscales, beepers, phones, ledgers & CASH

Drug dealing requires a certain level of security to prevent being ripped of by addicts or hurt by other dealers. So any proof of beefed up security around the drugs will be considered as proof of being a dealer. Guns found within reach of the drugs is most common security feature. Some dealers install complicated surveillance equipment. The most common guard dog used by dealers is a pit-bull. People v. Crenshaw, 202 Ill. App. 3d 432 (1st Dist. 1990).

ITEMS FOR SECURITYvideo monitoring systems, bit-bulls, guns

Addicts and drug users develop strong preferences for a certain type of drug. A cocaine addict won't waste money on heroine or marijuana and vice versa. Thus, when a person is arrested with multiple types of drugs such as cocaine, heroin, meth, or marijuana it could mean that person is not a user, but is instead selling to different markets. See People v. Green, 256 Ill. App. 3d 496 (1st Dist. 1993); People v. Thomas, 261 Ill. App. 3d 366 (1st Dist. 1994).

DRUG COMBINATIONS

Drugs found without the tools for ingestion can mean the person with the drugs had no intention to consume it but to sell it. Marijuana users usually also have pipes, blunts, or rolling paper to smoke it. Thus, lack of evidence of consumption is evidence of dealing.

NO PARAPHERNALIA

The area or place where an individual holding drugs can also be used against that person. An arrest in an area where street sales are known to be common can be used to prove the person was there selling drugs. People v. Jones, 215 Ill. App. 3d 652 (3rd Dist.)

HIGH CRIME AREA

A defendant claiming the drugs he was arrested with was for personal use may have any prior deliveries he committed used against him. Police testimony that the arrestee had sold drugs in the past may be used to prove he is a dealer. People v. LeCour, 172 Ill. App. 3d 878 (2nd Dist. 1988).

PRIOR DELIVERIES

If the defendant is found with a small amounts of drugs, but he tells the police he was going to sell it then those words will be used against him. Co-defendant, or people arrested with the defendant may also make statements indicating they know defendant to be selling. Other witness, may testify that they are aware of the defendant selling drugs.

STATEMENTS

People v Greenleaf, 254 Ill. App. 3d 585 (1st Dist. 1993)

People v. Delgado, 256 Ill. App. 3d 119 (1st Dist. 1993)

People v. Robinson, 233 Ill. App. 3d 278 (3rd Dist. 1992)

People v. Walensky, 286 Ill. App. 3d 82 (1st Dist. 1996)

See People v. Torres, 200 Ill. App. 3d 253 (2nd Dist. 1990)

People v. Romero, 189 Ill. App. 3d 749 (2nd Dist. 1989)

People v. Tolliver, 347 Ill. App. 3d 203 (1st Dist. 2004)

People v. Witherspoon, 216 Ill. App. 3d 323 (1st Dist. 1991)

People v. Baez, 206 Ill. App. 3d 410 (3rd Dist. 1990)

People v. Crenshaw, 202 Ill. App. 3d 432 (1st Dist. 1990)

People v. Green, 256 Ill. App. 3d 496 (1st Dist. 1993)

People v. Thomas, 261 Ill. App. 3d 366 (1st Dist. 1994)

. People v. Jones, 215 Ill. App. 3d 652 (3rd Dist.)

People v. LeCour, 172 Ill. App. 3d 878 (2nd Dist. 1988)

List of Cases

{

Proving Possession WithIntent to Deliver

Samuel Partida, Jr. is

Partida

fro the

People

www.PartidaFTP.com

If you thought this information was

useful, then visit me at

www.PartidaFTP. com to find

morew useful information on the

criminal law.

2© 2014 Partida for the People. All rights reserved.

Help me by out by visiting my

facebook fan page and "Like" it!

Do it now.

www.facebook.com/PartidaFTP