“I Didn’t Touch It”: Why Being Near Drugs Isn’t Enough for a Conviction

By: John Guidry

Certain issues keep coming up in my years of defending criminal accusations.

One of the most misunderstood is the concept of “Dominion and Control.”

Let’s say you’re at a dinner table with friends, and there are drugs on the table right in front of you.

• The Fact: You have “knowledge” of the drugs.
• The Law: But do you have the “ability to control” them?

To prove Possession, the prosecutor must prove more than just that your arms work and you could reach the drugs. They must prove you had the recognized authority to control them.

Was your car or home searched while friends were present?

You might not be legally responsible for their stash. Call John today at (407) 423-1117.

The Case: State v. Snyder (The “Thanks Bro” Defense)

One of my personal favorites is State v. Snyder, 635 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

• The Scenario: Snyder drove his friend Parker to the post office to pick up a shipment of meth. Parker promised to break off a line or two for Snyder as a “Thanks, bro.”
• The Bust: They couldn’t wait. Parker laid out lines on a cassette case in the parking lot. Police swooped in before Snyder could touch them.
• The Charge: Snyder was charged with Possession because he was sitting right next to the drugs he was about to consume.

The Ruling:

The Appeals Court reversed the conviction.

• The Logic: Even though Snyder knew the drugs were there and wanted them, they were still under Parker’s control. Parker had not yet “relinquished control” of the lines. Snyder had no “proprietary interest” or right to compel Parker to give them up.
• The Takeaway: Wanting drugs + Being near drugs $\neq$ Possessing drugs.

More Examples: Plain View is Not Enough

Snyder is not alone. Florida courts have repeatedly thrown out convictions where the defendant was near drugs but didn’t “own” the space or the stash.

1. The Motel Nightstand (Sundin v. State)

• Facts: Drugs were found on a nightstand between two beds. Sundin was on one bed, another person on the other.
• Ruling: Not Guilty. The State proved the pipe was within “ready reach” but failed to prove Sundin had control over the pipe or the shared room.

2. The Visitor (Harris v. State)

• Facts: Harris was visiting a home. Drugs were in plain view on the living room floor where he and the homeowner were sitting.
• Ruling: Not Guilty. Mere proximity (“ready reach”) is insufficient when you are a visitor in someone else’s space.

3. The Coffee Table (Hones v. State)

• Facts: Drugs were on a coffee table surrounded by three people.
• Ruling: Not Guilty. The court found no evidence that Hones acted with “apparent authority” to treat the marijuana as his own.

John’s 2026 Update: Touch DNA & Rideshares

Note: In the 90s, we argued about who was sitting closest to the cassette tape. In 2026, science settles the score.

1. Touch DNA Forensics

In Snyder, the court said Snyder never touched the drugs. Today, police don’t guess—they test.

• The 2026 Tech: “Touch DNA” technology is now cheap and routine in felony cases. Police will swab the baggie or the pipe.
• The Danger: If your DNA is found on the packaging, the “Constructive Possession” argument (“I never touched it”) is dead. Conversely, if your DNA is absent, we use that as powerful proof of innocence.

2. The Uber/Lyft Trap

Modern “Joint Occupancy” often happens in rideshares.

• The Scenario: You hop in an Uber. Police stop the car and find a bag of pills stuffed in the seat pocket in front of you.
• The Defense: We argue “Transitory Possession.” Hundreds of people sat in that seat before you. Unless they have video of you stuffing it there, or your DNA is on it, it is impossible to prove “Dominion and Control” over a public vehicle’s seat pocket.

3. Digital “Dominion”

Prosecutors now use your phone to prove “Control.”

• The Evidence: Even if the drugs were on the table (like in Hones), if your Venmo shows a payment to the homeowner for “Party Supplies” 20 minutes ago, the State argues you bought a share of the drugs, establishing your “Proprietary Interest.”

“Ready Reach” is Not Enough

Lazy prosecutors assume that if you could grab it, you possessed it. The law says otherwise. We force them to prove you had the authority to control the contraband, not just the proximity.

Call me at (407) 423-1117. Let’s analyze the scene.

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.