“If There Was Any More, I Would Have Smoked It”: Can You Be Convicted for Drug Dust?

By: John Guidry

Yes, these issues do come up here in Orlando. One particularly interesting Florida case happened in the parking lot of a gas station, where defendant Michael Quick was frisked by a deputy.

• The Find: The frisk revealed a glass pipe (drug paraphernalia) in his pocket.
• The Admission: Quick admitted to using the pipe to smoke crack cocaine the day before.

The Honest Truth: Quick told the police he did not possess any more crack. Frankly, I believe him. Most folks who smoke crack are going to smoke every last bit of it, saving nothing for later. He even told the police:

“If there was any more, believe me, I would have gotten it.”

How about that for honesty?

Did the police scrape a pipe to charge you with a felony?

Residue cases are beatable. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: Quick v. State (40 Months for Dust)

Mr. Quick’s honesty didn’t pay off initially. He was found guilty of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia AND Possession of Cocaine.

• The Sentence: 40 Months in Prison.
• The Waste: That is your taxpayer dollars hard at work. Spending $25,000+ a year to incarcerate a man for the residue on a glass tube instead of buying textbooks or healthcare.

The Legal Oddity: The “Possession of Cocaine” conviction was based solely on the residue on the pipe. At trial, a lab tech testified that the pipe contained “trace amounts.” (To which I usually reply, “So do the dollar bills in your back pocket.”)

The Defense: “I Thought It Was Empty”

The defense argued that Quick did not know he was possessing cocaine.

• The Argument: He knew he had the pipe, but he honestly believed he had smoked it all. If he thought the pipe was empty, he lacked the “Knowledge” required to commit the crime of possession.

The Trial Error: The Judge refused to give the jury an instruction on this “Lack of Knowledge” defense. The Judge claimed that because Quick admitted he knew cocaine was illegal, he couldn’t argue lack of knowledge.

The Ruling: Honesty Wins (Eventually)

The Appeals Court overturned the conviction and granted him a new trial. (Quick v. State, 46 So. 3d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)).

Why? Because knowledge of the presence of the drug is an essential element of the crime. The Court ruled that Quick was entitled to his affirmative defense:

“The defendant’s statement that he had consumed all the rock cocaine… supported his defense that he did not know there was cocaine residue remaining in the pipe.”

Without Mr. Quick’s honest testimony (“I smoked it all”), the court never would have overturned the conviction.

John’s 2026 Update: The Adkins Rule & Fentanyl Fears

Note: In 2010, Quick won because he spoke up. In 2026, speaking up is risky because the law has shifted.

1. The Adkins Shift (Burden of Proof) After Quick, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in State v. Adkins that the State does not have to prove you knew the drug was illegal.

• The Current Law: “Lack of Knowledge” is an Affirmative Defense.
• What this means: The State doesn’t have to prove you knew the residue was there. You have to prove you didn’t know. This makes Quick’s admission (“I thought it was empty”) even more critical today, but it shifts the burden entirely to the defendant.

2. The Fentanyl “Hazmat” Reality In 2026, officers are terrified of residue because of Fentanyl.

• The Danger: If that pipe has Fentanyl residue (which is invisible), prosecutors will argue that even a speck is a lethal weapon.
• The Defense: We argue that because Fentanyl is deadly in micro-doses, no reasonable user would knowingly carry “residue” loosely in a pocket. We use the extreme danger of the drug to prove you must have been unaware of its presence.

3. Body Cams Catch the “Honesty” In Quick, his statement was written in a report. Today, it’s on 4K video.

• Strategy: If the Body Cam shows you genuinely surprised when they find the residue, or shows you saying, “I swear I finished it,” we play that clip for the jury. A genuine reaction is the best proof of “Lack of Knowledge.”

Don’t Let Them Make a Mountain Out of a Speck

If you honestly thought the container was empty, you shouldn’t be a convicted felon. The law requires you to knowingly possess the drug, not accidentally possess the dust.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s clean up this record.

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.