Junk in the Trunk: Why “It’s My Car” Doesn’t Mean “It’s My Drugs”

By: John Guidry

When will people ever learn?

I try to tell them, even at the risk of losing business (yes, I have my unselfish moments). But nobody listens, and we Orlando criminal attorneys continue to stay in business… So it bears repeating: Drugs in the trunk are never a good thing, especially if you decide to speed.

But, as fate would have it, our favorite legal doctrine—Constructive Possession—kicks in to save the day. Let’s take a look at the action up close.

Arrested for something found in your trunk that wasn’t yours?

Ownership of the car is not proof of guilt. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: Gizaw v. State

In Gizaw v. State, 71 So. 3d 214 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), the defendant was stopped for speeding.

• The Search: Gizaw gave permission to search. Police admitted they asked because her passenger was on probation for a drug offense.
• The Discovery: In the trunk, police found a suitcase full of cannabis.
• The Context: The trunk also contained men’s jeans (not her size) and her college textbooks.

Gizaw denied knowing about the drugs. However, she had $939 in cash on her person, and the car belonged to her. The Verdict: The jury convicted her of Trafficking in Cannabis and sentenced her to 42 months in prison.

The Appeal: The “Independent Proof” Rule

Now, remember everything I’ve told you about Constructive Possession? Because the drugs were not in her hand (Actual Possession), the State had to prove two things:

1. She knew the drugs were there.
2. She had dominion and control over them.

The “Joint Occupancy” Defense Because she had a passenger who also had access to the car (he had the keys earlier that day), this is a “Joint Occupancy” case. In these cases, the law says: Mere ownership of the car is NOT enough. The State must provide “Independent Proof” linking her to the drugs.

The Victory: The Appeals Court overturned Gizaw’s conviction.

• The Cash: The court ruled that having $939 cash was not “independent proof” of drug dealing because the State failed to connect the money to the drugs.
• The Suitcase: There were no fingerprints on the suitcase. It contained men’s jeans (suggesting it belonged to the male passenger).
• The Ruling: “The State’s evidence in this case does not rule out the possibility that the cannabis belonged to the passenger.”

John’s 2026 Update: The New Risks of the Trunk

Note: The Gizaw defense is still the gold standard for “unknowing mule” cases.

In 2026, we still use Gizaw to win cases where a driver is blamed for a passenger’s luggage. However, prosecutors have new tools to try to find that “Independent Proof.”

1. The “Touch DNA” Threat In 2011, police rarely tested suitcase handles for DNA. In 2026, they almost always swab the zipper and handle for Touch DNA.

• The Defense: If your DNA is not on the bag, but the passenger’s is, the Gizaw defense becomes a slam dunk. We demand this testing immediately.

2. Text Message Extraction Police now use devices (like Cellebrite) to download your texts instantly at the station (with a warrant).

• In Gizaw, the cash was just cash. Today, if they find cash and a text message saying “I’m making a drop,” that is the independent proof they need to convict you.

3. The “Blind Mule” Defense We see many cases now involving ride-share drivers (Uber/Lyft) or people borrowing cars.

• We argue that a driver cannot be expected to inventory the luggage of every passenger. Unless there is a smell or an admission, the trunk is a private space for the passenger’s property, effectively separating the driver from the contraband.

Was It Yours, or Were You Just the Driver?

If you are facing trafficking charges for a bag found in your trunk, do not let them tell you “it’s your car, so you’re guilty.” That is not the law.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s prove you didn’t know.

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.