Drug cases turn on proof. Where was the substance found? Who controlled it? Was the stop legal? Was the warrant stale? Does the enhancer really apply? These examples show the kinds of pressure points that can move a case.
A drug charge can look overwhelming because the police report starts with the evidence already found. The defense starts earlier. We examine why the officer stopped the person, how the search expanded, what the warrant actually said, and whether the State can connect the substance to the accused person.
The results below are grouped around the issues that matter most in drug defense: suppression, constructive possession, intent to deliver, and federal penalty enhancers.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Every case depends on its own facts, law, judge, prosecutor, record, and timing.
Representative outcomes
What changed the case
Evidence suppressedEastern District of Wisconsin
Federal methamphetamine delivery evidence suppressed
Issue
Search warrant challenged for staleness and informant-basis problems.
Result
Suppression granted and the government dismissed the 21 U.S.C. 841 count.
Avoided
Federal drug-delivery conviction built from the challenged search.
The defense attacked the warrant foundation instead of waiting for sentencing. Once the evidence from the search came out, the federal delivery count could not proceed.
Two prior drug-felony enhancers exposed the client to mandatory life.
Result
Government withdrew one section 851 notice after collateral-attack briefing.
Avoided
Mandatory life sentence.
The defense focused on the predicate convictions driving the federal enhancer. Removing one notice changed the sentencing posture from mandatory life to a lower guidelines range.
Weight, intent, and constructive possession in a multi-occupant vehicle.
Result
Charge amended from PWID marijuana to simple possession.
Avoided
Felony conviction on the client record.
The defense challenged whether the facts proved intent to deliver and whether the substance could be tied to the client rather than the shared vehicle.
Traffic stop, canine sniff, RV search, and later home warrant were challenged under the Fourth Amendment.
Result
Evidence suppressed in the first case; warrant affidavit narrowed in the second; both matters dismissed.
Avoided
Multiple THC delivery, paraphernalia, and drug-trafficking-place counts.
The defense showed how an unlawful vehicle search tainted the later home warrant. The litigation took nearly two years, but the result removed the core evidence from both matters.
The most important drug-defense question is often why the police were allowed to stop, detain, search, or request the warrant in the first place.
Separate possession from proximity
Shared cars, shared residences, borrowed property, and multi-person stops can create gaps in knowing possession and intent to deliver.
Attack enhancers directly
Federal notices, repeat-drug allegations, and weight thresholds can drive the sentence more than the base charge.
Built for hard cases
Serious defense, specific proof, clear next steps.
Cafferty & Scheidegger has defended state and federal criminal matters in
Southeastern Wisconsin since 1994. If you are weighing risk,
start with the consequence you need to avoid and get the case reviewed now.
