Drug charges can lead to serious legal consequences, but not all charges stem from drugs physically found on a person.
In many situations, law enforcement and prosecutors pursue charges based on a theory called constructive possession. This concept applies when a person doesn’t physically hold or carry drugs but is believed to have had the power and intent to control them.
Constructive possession is often used in situations involving shared spaces, such as cars, homes, or apartments. It can be a highly contested issue in court, as it relies on circumstantial evidence and interpretation of a person’s proximity, knowledge, and control over the location where the drugs were discovered.
Because the stakes are high and the evidence can be unclear, anyone facing a constructive possession charge should consider consulting a skilled criminal defense attorney, such as Kent Balduchi in Des Moines, Iowa.
In Iowa, possession of a controlled substance falls under Iowa Code § 124.401. The law distinguishes between two main types of possession: actual and constructive. Actual possession is when someone physically carries or touches drugs, like in a pocket, purse, or backpack.
Constructive possession, on the other hand, applies when a person has the ability and intent to control the substance, even if it’s not physically on them.
Courts don’t need direct evidence of control, but they do require proof that the person was aware of the drugs and had the authority or intent to manage them. That makes constructive possession more interpretive and often the subject of debate in a criminal defense case.
When prosecutors pursue a constructive possession theory, they must prove two main elements: knowledge of the drug’s presence and control over the substance or the area where it was found. These elements aren’t always easy to establish, so courts rely on several surrounding circumstances.
Factors courts consider in constructive possession cases include the following:
Proximity to the drugs: If drugs are located within immediate reach of the accused, this can weigh in favor of constructive possession.
Ownership or control of the premises: If the person owns or rents the property where drugs are found, the court may infer control.
Behavior or conduct: Nervous actions, attempting to flee, or making incriminating statements can be used as evidence.
Exclusive access to the area: If no one else had access to the area, it's more likely the court will find constructive possession.
Presence of personal belongings near the drugs: If items like ID, bags, or clothes are found next to the drugs, this may link the person to possession.
Each case is unique, and the weight of these factors can vary. Courts will often assess the totality of the circumstances when determining whether constructive possession applies.
Constructive possession arises in many real-world situations, especially where drugs are discovered in shared or public places. Prosecutors rely on circumstantial evidence to build their case, but these scenarios often involve gray areas that can be challenged with strong criminal defense strategies.
Some examples of situations where constructive possession comes up include:
Drugs found in a shared vehicle: If police pull over a car with multiple occupants and drugs are discovered under a seat or in the glove box, all passengers may be investigated.
Drugs in a jointly occupied residence: If someone lives with roommates and drugs are found in common areas, prosecutors may still pursue charges without proving actual ownership.
Drugs discovered in a borrowed item: If someone is driving a borrowed car or wearing a borrowed jacket with drugs inside, prosecutors may allege constructive possession unless evidence shows otherwise.
Traffic stops involving multiple people: Law enforcement might argue that anyone with access to an area where drugs are hidden shares some level of responsibility.
Each of these situations calls for careful legal review. Just because someone is near drugs doesn’t automatically mean they’re guilty of possessing them.
Prosecutors typically rely on police reports, testimony, surveillance, and circumstantial evidence to argue constructive possession. Because the drugs aren’t found directly on the accused, the case depends on showing that the individual had both awareness and control.
Here are some ways the prosecution tries to support its case:
Witness statements: Testimonies from others who were present or familiar with the scene.
Video or photo evidence: Surveillance from traffic stops, bodycams, or home cameras.
Incriminating statements: Admissions or comments made to police.
Prior criminal history: While not always admissible, past drug charges can sometimes be used to suggest intent or knowledge.
Despite these tools, many constructive possession cases rest on speculation. That’s why criminal defense lawyers often focus on highlighting doubts and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s claims.
The burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution, which must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A seasoned criminal defense lawyer can identify weaknesses in the case, dispute the alleged control or knowledge, and argue that the evidence is too thin to justify a conviction.
Key strategies used in constructive possession defenses include:
Lack of knowledge: Demonstrating the defendant didn’t know the drugs were present.
No control over the area: Showing that the accused didn’t have authority over where the drugs were found.
Multiple possible owners: Arguing that others had equal or greater access to the drugs.
Unlawful search and seizure: Challenging the legality of how the evidence was obtained.
Attorney Kent Balduchi understands the importance of aggressive representation in these cases. They look closely at every detail—how the drugs were found, who had access, and whether law enforcement followed legal procedures.
Every constructive possession case hinges on context. What might seem like compelling evidence in one case may fall apart under scrutiny in another. That’s why courts must examine the full picture: who was present, what the living or travel arrangements were, and whether anyone else could have placed the drugs in the location.
In shared environments like apartments or cars, it’s easy for someone to be wrongly accused. A friend or family member could have left something behind without the other person knowing. In these cases, the context becomes just as important as the physical evidence.
Possession charges can escalate depending on the amount and type of drug involved. Constructive possession cases may also include charges related to intent to distribute, drug paraphernalia, or child endangerment if drugs are found near minors. These additions increase the potential penalties significantly.
Additional charges may include:
Possession with intent to deliver: If the amount of drugs or packaging suggests sale or distribution.
Drug tax stamp violations: A unique Iowa law requires controlled substances to bear a state-issued stamp.
Maintaining a drug house: If drugs are found repeatedly in the same location.
Weapons charges: If firearms are discovered alongside drugs.
Because constructive possession can lead to felony charges and long-term consequences, having strong legal representation is critical.
The penalties for a possession conviction in Iowa vary based on the drug classification, quantity, and criminal history of the defendant. Even a first offense for marijuana possession can result in jail time, fines, and a criminal record. More serious drugs, like methamphetamine or cocaine, carry harsher penalties.
Consequences may include:
Jail or prison time: Ranging from a few days to multiple years.
Fines: Starting at several hundred dollars and increasing for felony-level offenses.
Driver’s license suspension: Common even for non-vehicular cases.
Probation: Supervised release that may include drug testing or counseling.
A permanent criminal record: Which can affect housing, employment, and education.
The severity of constructive possession outcomes makes it one of the most important charges to challenge with a strong criminal defense approach.
Another critical aspect of any constructive possession case is how the evidence was obtained. If law enforcement violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights through an illegal search or seizure, the court may suppress that evidence. This can dramatically alter the course of the case.
Constitutional issues may arise in the following situations:
Unlawful traffic stops
Warrantless home searches
Improper arrests
Violation of Miranda rights during questioning
A criminal defense attorney will closely review these aspects and may file motions to exclude evidence, which can significantly weaken the state’s position.
Constructive possession often relies on proximity, behavior, and control of the area, but it leaves room for interpretation. A skilled criminal defense strategy can make all the difference in your case. Located in Des Moines, Iowa, Balduchi Law Office, PC serves clients throughout Polk County and surrounding counties. Contact the firm today to start building your defense.
Constructive possession is often used in situations involving shared spaces, such as cars, homes, or apartments. It can be a highly contested issue in court, as it relies on circumstantial evidence and interpretation of a person’s proximity, knowledge, and control over the location where the drugs were discovered.
A domestic abuse conviction in Des Moines, Iowa carries severe legal, social, and personal consequences that can affect many aspects of an individual's life. The repercussions extend beyond the courtroom, influencing employment chances, housing options, child custody rights, and more.
Kent Balduchi at Balduchi Law Office, PC in Des Moines, Iowa, often addresses questions from individuals dealing with domestic abuse issues and seeking restraining orders. Domestic violence can take many forms, from verbal threats to physical harm, and Iowa courts permit victims to file for restraining orders when they face immediate or ongoing danger.
