Criminal Defense
Since 1993
Since 1993
Waiting for the “Package”: When Intent to Use Isn’t Possession
By: John Guidry
As a kid, Christmas was a big deal. I couldn’t wait for those gifts. Sure, I was guilty of a little house snooping, Nancy Drew style. But my parents were always one step ahead, and I never caught a glimpse of the unwrapped packages.
Even as adults, we can get a little anxious for packages to arrive. That is especially true for those awaiting “special” shipments via the mail. To them, it’s like Christmas all over again.
No, I don’t know this from personal experience, but after defending criminal cases for 20 years, you start to see patterns in behavior. Today, we are reviewing a classic case that proves wanting to use drugs is not the same as possessing them.
Were you arrested just for being near someone else’s drugs?
Proximity is not possession. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.
The Legal Breakdown: State v. Snyder
Let’s look at one of my favorite cases, State v. Snyder, 635 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
- The Anticipation: Snyder knew his friend Parker had some methamphetamines being delivered via the postal service. Like giddy little kids, they went to the post office to pick it up.
- The “Party”: They couldn’t wait to get home. They took the package to the car, busted it open, and Parker started cutting out lines of meth on his lap for them to share.
- The Bust: Before Snyder could take his turn, the police arrived.
- The Admission: Snyder admitted to police that he was ready, willing, and able to do a line of meth.
The Charge: Snyder was charged with Possession of Methamphetamine. The Defense: Snyder’s attorney filed a Motion to Dismiss. The argument? Snyder never actually possessed the drugs—Parker did.
Why the Case Was Dismissed
Many prosecutors have problems understanding how this case could be dismissed. It seems open and shut, right?
- He saw the drugs (Knowledge).
- He knew they were illegal (Knowledge).
- He admitted he was about to snort them (Intent).
The Verdict: Not Guilty The trial court dismissed the charges, and the Appellate Court agreed. Why? Because Snyder was not in “Actual Possession” (holding it) and the State could not prove “Constructive Possession.”
The “Dominion and Control” Problem Constructive possession requires proof of three things:
- Knowledge of the drug.
- Dominion over the drug.
- Control over the drug.
If you don’t have all three, you cannot get a conviction. The court reasoned that even though Snyder was inches away and ready to inhale, the drugs were still on Parker’s lap. Parker had not yet relinquished control. Snyder had no “immediate right” to the drugs until Parker gave the go-ahead. Because Parker was still organizing the lines, Snyder never had dominion and control.
As the court noted:
“Snyder had no immediate right to reduce the methamphetamine to his possession… because Parker had not yet relinquished control over the line he was organizing for their use.”
John’s Takeaways
- Intent is Not Possession: You can stare at a pile of drugs and really want to use them, but until you have the ability to control them, you haven’t committed the crime of possession.
- Proximity is Not Proof: Just being in a car where drugs are being cut doesn’t make you the owner. The State must prove you had the right to control those items.
- Constructive Possession is Tough: This legal theory is the State’s safety net when they catch you near drugs but not holding them. However, it is a fragile net. If we can show the drugs belonged to someone else and you were just a bystander (or a waiting user), the charges often fall apart.
Caught in the Passenger Seat?
If you were arrested because your friend had drugs in the car, do not let the State assume you are guilty just because you were sitting there.
Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s make the State prove dominion and control.
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.