“Friends with Weed” (and Meth): Why Waiting for a Line is Not the Same as Possessing It

By: John Guidry

I’m sure we all have a few friends who consume drugs of some sort—some legal, some illegal. The problem arises when your friend’s generosity gets you arrested.

• The Scenario: Your friend buys a bag. He offers you some. Before you can take it, the cops kick the door in.
• The Question: Are you guilty of possession just because you were about to use it?

Were you arrested for drugs that belonged to someone else?

Proximity is not possession. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: State v. Snyder (The Cassette Case Lines)

The case is State v. Snyder, 635 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

• The Setup: Snyder and his buddy Parker were waiting for a package of methamphetamine to arrive via FedEx. (Yes, I know the title says “Weed,” but the legal principle is the same).
• The Arrival: Parker picked up the package. He was the “Owner” of the drugs.
• The Generosity: Parker offered to let Snyder try some. He proceeded to pour out two lines onto a cassette case. (For my younger readers, ask your parents what a cassette tape is).
• The Bust: Before Snyder had a chance to snort the lines, the police arrived and arrested them both.

The Charge: Snyder was charged with Possession of Methamphetamine.

• The State’s Argument: Snyder was there. He knew about the drugs. He was about to use the drugs. Therefore, he possessed them.

The Defense: “I Didn’t Have Dominion… Yet”

Snyder’s attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss (technically a (c)(4) Motion).

• The Argument: Parker owned the drugs. Parker was holding the drugs. Snyder was merely an anticipatory user.
• The Key Legal Test: To prove Constructive Possession, the State must prove the defendant had “Dominion and Control.”

The Ruling: The Appeals Court dismissed the charges against Snyder.

• The Logic: Because Parker owned the drugs, Snyder had no right to “compel” Parker to give them to him.
  • Parker could have changed his mind and wiped the lines off the cassette case.
  • Until Snyder actually took the drug into his body or hand, he had no control over it.
  • The Court’s Words: “The ability to reduce a controlled substance to one’s actual possession was the key.” Snyder never had that ability because Parker was in charge.

The Lesson: When the rightful owner is present and admits to ownership, it is very difficult for the State to prove that the guest had dominion and control. You can’t possess what you can’t control.

John’s 2026 Update: Venmo & Touch DNA

Note: In 1994, Snyder was just a freeloader waiting for a line. In 2026, digital trails change the game.

1. The Venmo/CashApp Trap In Snyder, the court ruled Snyder had no “right to compel” Parker to share.

• The 2026 Reality: If Snyder had sent Parker $20 on CashApp with the memo “Party Favors” before the FedEx package arrived, the ruling would be different.
• The Consequence: The payment proves a Joint Venture. You effectively “purchased” the drugs. You now have a proprietary interest (a right to compel), which establishes Constructive Possession—and arguably Conspiracy to Traffic.

2. Touch DNA on the Package In 1994, unless you held the bag, they couldn’t link you to it.

• The 2026 Science: If Snyder had helped Parker open the FedEx box, or even touched the cassette case before the lines were poured, Touch DNA would place him in “Actual Possession” of the container.
• The Result: We see cases where a passenger is convicted because their DNA was on the outside of a baggie found in the driver’s pocket.

3. The “Drug-Induced Homicide” Risk The stakes are higher now.

• The Danger: If Parker shares the lines, and Snyder dies from a Fentanyl overdose (common in 2026), Parker is charged with Murder.
• The Warning: Generosity is no longer just a possession risk; it is a homicide risk. If you hand a friend a pill and they die, you go away for life.

Don’t Pay for the Party

If you are just hanging out, you have a defense. But if you paid for the drugs, handled the packaging, or helped arrange the deal, you are just as guilty as the owner.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s establish ownership.

About John Guidry II

John Guidry II is a seasoned criminal defense attorney and founder of the Law Firm of John P. Guidry II, P.A., located in downtown Orlando next to the Orange County Courthouse, where he has practiced for over 30 years. With more than three decades of experience defending clients throughout Central Florida since 1993, Guidry has successfully defended thousands of cases in Orange, Seminole, Osceola, Brevard, Lake, and Volusia counties. He has built a reputation for his strategic approach to criminal defense, focusing on pretrial motions and case dismissals rather than jury trials.

Guidry earned both his Juris Doctorate and Master of Business Administration from St. Louis University in 1993. He is a member of the Florida Bar and the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. His practice encompasses the full spectrum of Florida state criminal charges, with a particular emphasis on achieving favorable outcomes through thorough pretrial preparation and motion practice.

Beyond the courtroom, Guidry is a prolific legal educator who has authored over 400 articles on criminal defense topics. He shares his legal expertise through his popular YouTube channel, Instagram, and TikTok accounts, where he has built a substantial following of people eager to learn about the law. His educational content breaks down complex legal concepts into accessible information for the general public.

When not practicing law, Guidry enjoys tennis and pickleball, and loves to travel. Drawing from his background as a former recording studio owner and music video producer in the Orlando area, he brings a creative perspective to his legal practice and continues to apply his passion for video production to his educational content.