Published on 4/28/2022, 3:26:00 PM

Maryland Possession With Intent to Distribute Charges

If you or a family member was recently arrested on drug charges, the charging document may use the abbreviation “CDS: Poss W/I Dist.” That refers to possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute.

This article explains the difference between possession with intent, actual distribution, and simple possession. It also explains the evidence the defense reviews and how FrizWoods prepares an already-filed case.

If you are facing a PWID or distribution charge, bring the charging papers, search paperwork, release conditions, and next court notice to a free consultation. Contact FrizWoods or call (877) 343-1031.

Shane Nolan brings substantial drug-case experience to FrizWoods. A former Anne Arundel County prosecutor, he handled drug offenses as part of his prosecution docket and draws on that background when evaluating the State’s evidence and preparing a defense. His Coast Guard service also included work alongside teams that interdicted narcotics.

Possession With Intent to Distribute in Maryland

In a Maryland possession with intent to distribute case, the State of Maryland must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) that the defendant possessed a controlled dangerous substance [This is a scientific test]; and

(2) that the defendant possessed a controlled dangerous substance with the intent to distribute some or all of it.

The State can prove intent to distribute a variety of ways, as Distribute is understood to mean to sell, exchange, or transfer possession of the substance, or to give it away. The State may offer the quantity of the controlled dangerous substance along with all other circumstances to make their case that a person intended to distribute a controlled dangerous substance.

Possession with intent to distribute or more commonly PWID, is a felony charge that arises from conduct that falls short of actual distribution, but the State believes could still support proof that the person was intending to distribute.

The State often puts forth this theory of “intent to distribute” by showing factors that would lead a jury to the conclusion of intent. Some of these include:

• The presence of large amounts of a controlled dangerous substance

• The way the controlled dangerous substances are packaged, for example, packaged in small amounts for “sale”

• The presence of a scale to weigh drugs for sale

• The presence of large amounts of cash, which is typically seized in these cases

• Search and seizure warrants of cellphones, which often contain messages and photos indicating drug sales

• The presence of a ledger or log of drug sales

• Testimony of buyers or undercover police officers who arranged purchases

• Statements attributed to the accused

Evidence Review in a PWID Case

The defense should test both possession and the alleged intent to distribute. Depending on the case, that review can include:

• Whether the drugs were found on the accused or in a shared vehicle, home, bag, or container
• Who had access to the location and whether the State can prove actual or constructive possession
• The lawfulness and scope of the stop, warrant, search, seizure, and device extraction
• Body-camera, surveillance, controlled-purchase, and other recordings
• Text messages, social-media messages, call records, photos, and the State’s interpretation of them
• Quantity, packaging, cash, scales, ledgers, and whether another explanation fits the complete evidence
• Informant, cooperator, buyer, and officer testimony
• Laboratory identification of the substance and the chain of custody
• Statements attributed to the accused and whether they were obtained and reported accurately
• Firearm evidence and any separate gun charge

A quantity or package can be relevant, but it does not decide intent by itself. Counsel should compare all circumstances, including personal-use evidence, access by other people, the reliability of informants, and what the complete communications actually show.

How FrizWoods Prepares the Defense

Shane’s prosecution background helps the team evaluate how the State may organize a search, laboratory result, recording, and witness account into a PWID theory. Max Frizalone and Luke Woods bring their own prosecution, public-defense, and trial experience. Featuring Shane’s background does not promise that a particular lawyer will be assigned to every case.

We identify the exact counts, obtain available discovery, build the search and possession timeline, compare device evidence with the alleged intent, examine laboratory and custody records, and prepare for motions, plea discussions, or trial based on the facts. The statewide Maryland drug lawyer page explains the firm’s broader drug-defense practice, while local pages address court and consultation information for specific counties.

Potential Penalties for Possession With Intent to Distribute

The potential penalty depends on the substance, quantity, exact subsection, criminal history, companion counts, and law in effect for the charged conduct. A firearm allegation, fentanyl-related allegation, or other charged enhancement can create separate issues. Review the charging document rather than assuming that every PWID case carries the same sentencing range.

Because Maryland drug laws and penalty provisions change, this page does not substitute for a charge-specific review of the current statute. Counsel can identify the maximum exposure and any alleged enhancement from the filed counts.

How do you defend a charge of possession with intent?

Every Maryland possession with intent case is different, but below are some common defenses to PWID cases. Our guide on how to beat a PWID case walks through them in depth:

1. When a possession-with-intent case begins with a roadside stop, counsel can examine whether the stop complied with the Fourth Amendment and Maryland law;

2. Vehicle searches require a warrant or an applicable warrant exception, and counsel can review the facts offered to justify the search.

3. Often searches of cellphones are done by warrant, these warrants are subject to challenge.

4. Search warrants of homes can be challenged in Court;

5. Statements of Defendants are subjects to limitations, like improper Miranda warnings;

6. The State must put on scientific evidence to prove something is a controlled dangerous substance. This process is subject to challenge;

7. Many PWID cases are just over charged possession cases, when a person chooses to buy controlled substances in a larger quantity for personal use, this can be mistaken for an intent to distribute.

These are examples of issues counsel may evaluate, not a checklist of defenses that applies to every case. You can discuss the filed charge and available evidence with a Maryland criminal lawyer during a free consultation.

CDS dist-narc, What is drug distribution?

If you see CDS dist-narc on a charging document, a person is facing drug distribution charges in Maryland. Unlike possession with intent to distribute, Drug distribution charges require that the state actually prove a sale or transfer of controlled dangerous substances.

For the state to prove a drug distribution charge, they must prove that:

the defendant sold, exchanged, transferred, or gave away a controlled dangerous substance [this is a scientific test] ; and

(2) that the substance was a controlled dangerous substance.

Potential Penalties for Drug Distribution

Distribution and PWID charges can carry serious incarceration and fine exposure. The applicable range depends on the filed subsection, substance, quantity, criminal history, and any separate enhancement. Counsel should verify the current statute against the charging document instead of relying on a single general number.

How do you fight a drug distribution charge?

Drug distribution cases are often proven through actual documented sales. Sometimes these sales are done with an informant, other times an Officer observes sales.

It is crucial to legally attack the “point of sale” in the State’s case. Whether that means unmasking the informant, or challenging the admissibility of a recording, these cases often have a single event that must be challenged.

There is also a scientific angle to every controlled dangerous substance case, and the same level of proof is required as a simple possession case.

Other Drug Distribution Charges

Maryland charging documents may include allegations based on quantity, importation, an organizational role, a firearm, or another circumstance. Those are not interchangeable labels, and their elements and potential consequences can change. If the document uses terms such as “large amount,” “volume dealer,” “importer,” or “drug kingpin,” have counsel identify the exact code section and the proof tied to that count. See our felony drug charge defense page for related preparation issues.

What is a controlled dangerous substance?

Controlled dangerous substances are regulated by the State of Maryland, and include a wide array of both “legal” and “illegal” substances.

A few examples include:

• Marijuana

• Heroin

• Fentanyl

• Cocaine

• Crack

• 3,4-Methyl?enedioxy?methamphetamine (“MDMA”, “Extasy”, or “Molly”)

• Methenamine(“Meth”)

• Painkillers

• Phencyclidine (“PCP”)

These are not an exhaustive list of all controlled dangerous substances in Maryland. That can be found in Schedule I - Schedule V of Maryland Controlled Dangerous Substances

CDS: possess-not marijuana, Possession of a controlled dangerous substance

If you see “CDS: Possess-Not Marijuana” on a persons’ charging document, then they were charged with possession of drugs in Maryland. Possession of drugs in Maryland is a misdemeanor, and is charged as possession of a controlled dangerous substance, or “CDS”.

For the State to prove possession, they must show

(1) that the defendant knowingly possessed the substance;

(2) that the defendant knew the general character or illicit nature of the substance; and

(3) that the substance was a controlled dangerous substance (this is a scientific test).

Simple-Possession Penalties

Simple possession and PWID are different charging theories. The potential penalty for simple possession depends on the substance, amount, criminal history, charging provision, and current law. Cannabis laws have changed since this article was first published, so older amount-based summaries should not be used to evaluate a current charging document.

Defenses to CDS Possession cases

Common Defenses in drug possession cases include:

• The person had a valid prescription for the controlled dangerous substance

• The person was not in actual or constructive possession of the drug

• The stop of the motor vehicle that yielded the drugs was illegal

• The search that resulted in the drugs was illegal

• The substance is not in fact a drug (this is scientific)

• Another person actually possessed the drug

• The person had no knowledge of the drug being where it was found

• There are additional defenses to CDS cases that you should discuss with a Maryland Criminal Defense Lawyer.

CDS:poss paraphernalia, Possession of Paraphernalia

A charging document may include a separate paraphernalia count. Whether an everyday object is treated as drug paraphernalia depends on its alleged use and the surrounding evidence. Common allegations involve:

• Used needles

• Empty drug baggies

• Bongs or smoking devices

• Spoons used to heat up certain drugs

• Straws used to inhale drugs.

It can be difficult for the State to prove a common every day thing lie a straw is "drug paraphernalia". A Court will consider any of the following when evaluating if something is drug paraphernalia

1. any statement by an owner or a person in control of the object concerning its use;

2. any prior conviction of an owner or a person in control of the object under a State or federal law relating to a controlled dangerous substance;

3. the proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of this section or to a controlled dangerous substance;

4. a residue of a controlled dangerous substance on the object;

5. direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner or a person in control of the object to deliver it to another who, the owner or the person knows or should reasonably know, intends to use the object to facilitate a violation of this section;

6. any instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning its use;

7. any descriptive materials accompanying the object that explain or depict its use;

8. national and local advertising concerning use of the object;

9. the manner in which the object is displayed for sale;

10. whether the owner or a person in control of the object is a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products or other legitimate supplier of related items to the community;

11. direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the object to the total sales of the business enterprise;

12. the existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in the community; and

13. expert testimony concerning use of the object.

Potential consequences

The applicable penalty depends on the precise count and criminal history. A paraphernalia allegation can also affect how prosecutors describe the alleged possession or intent to distribute, so counsel should review it with the other counts rather than in isolation.

Do you have drug charges in Maryland?

FrizWoods offers a free consultation about filed Maryland drug charges. Call (877) 343-1031 or request a consultation. Depending on the jurisdiction, our Anne Arundel County drug lawyer, Prince George’s County drug lawyer, Baltimore drug lawyer, and other local service pages provide office and court information.

Learn more about Shane Nolan’s drug-case experience and the FrizWoods Maryland drug defense team.