Internal Possession Laws

My question involves criminal law for the state of: Alabama

Hi,

I have learned that being uninformed (ignorant) of the law places us in constant danger. There is so much legislation (law) that has passed on top of our Constitution and Bill of Rights that completely violate both it is near impossible to know ALL the laws you can be breaking at any one time.

I have searched, but can't find any good information -- so I thought I would ask you guys/ladies.

What states have "Internal Possession" laws?

Specifically law that makes it a "crime" to have any substance in your system (body) but where you do not have it on your person, or possession. IE: You have prescription medication in you, or even Marijuana etc. With our 'War On Drugs' pretty much anyone at some point during the year can be violating this.

I live in Alabama, and cannot find this law.. if it exists.

I understand that driving while impaired -- mainly alcohol is it's own offense -- DUI.

However, what about driving NOT impaired but you have a substance of any kind that would be detected should you have a urinalysis? AKA: Internal Possession ?

What about walking down the street?

At work?

In your home?

I have always maintained and thought -- as I'm sure most of the population does -- that if you have no drugs on you PERIOD, then you aren't breaking the law. (I'm not saying driving impaired) I mean in general.. anywhere.

So if you can't answer anything else,.. does the state of Alabama have this Internal Possession law?

An example of this law.. In South Dakota is cited here:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-...thdakota.shtml

Thanks for any information,

Let me make it easy for you. IT'S ILLEGAL TO CONSUME ALCOHOL WHEN YOU ARE UNDERAGE (except in certain very limited circumstances in some state). If you don't BREAK THE LAW. You don't have to worry about EVERYTHING you said above.

You've misunderstood this forum. This is the legal advice forum, not the HOW DO I BREAK THE LAW AND GET AWAY WITH IT board.
We can't provide you information on how to go out an commit crimes.

Quote:

---

Quoting flyingron

---

Let me make it easy for you. IT'S ILLEGAL TO CONSUME ALCOHOL WHEN YOU ARE UNDERAGE (except in certain very limited circumstances in some state). If you don't BREAK THE LAW. You don't have to worry about EVERYTHING you said above.

You've misunderstood this forum. This is the legal advice forum, not the HOW DO I BREAK THE LAW AND GET AWAY WITH IT board.
We can't provide you information on how to go out an commit crimes.

---

I'm sorry you came to that conclusion/assumption.

I am not trying to circumnavigate the law. I am simply learning. I am not using substances, nor intend on breaking the law in any manner. I didn't ask how to avoid prosecution in any matter, or how to 'get away' with anything. If my post implies such a notion I apologize sincerely.

I merely would like to know the law,.. and understand it. This is one of many questions.

The "If you don't break the law you don't have to worry about the law" as you stated -- I am quite aware of. This logic can be applied to any criminal law question a person poses..

I don't drink alcohol, but I don't think it is wrong. I don't even like Marijuana -- In fact I can't stand it. Though I do wish to educate myself on the laws pertaining to 'internal drug possession'.

Again, I get the feeling you think I am some young punk trying to go around as a miscreant , perhaps endangering the public etc. I am far from it, nor am I even close to under age. Well into my 30's.

I didn't expect this response, but I can understand how someone reading the question would assume a negative stance towards the query.

I mean no disrespect to this place, and thought it was appropriate asking about this law. I am/was intrigued and curious because I ran across an article of it being enforced and had no idea it existed. Which is what prompted my search about it, and said search revealed nothing concrete. So I thought this would be a good and proper place to ask and obtain an intelligent accurate answer.

If I am truly out of line, again, I apologize.

Take care,

Quote:

---

Quoting Chromatic

---

I have learned that being uninformed (ignorant) of the law places us in constant danger.

---

I suppose ... but, generally, it only places those that are already skirting the edges of societal norms at risk.

Quote:

---

There is so much legislation (law) that has passed on top of our Constitution and Bill of Rights that completely violate both

---

Really? You do realize that the courts tend to affirm the vast majority of these laws, correct? And, the last time I checked, the courts were the arbiters of what is or is not Constitutional or permissible under the law. So, how then could a law that has withstood legal scrutiny be in violation of the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights?

There is a difference between not liking or agreeing with a law and it being unconstitutional.

Quote:

---

it is near impossible to know ALL the laws you can be breaking at any one time.

---

Maybe ... but, as long as you are not acting like a flangehead or behaving poorly, you should be okay.

Quote:

---

What states have "Internal Possession" laws?

---

I suspect none state so explicitly, but many have implied this through interpretation of consumption and possession statutes. in CA, for instance, the last I heard there were some 15 counties (of 58) that still applied a form of "internal possession" in their prosecutions. I suppose they abide by the entirely reasonable and logical assumption that if you test positive for alcohol you clearly had been in possession of the alcohol at one time. There is an easy way to avoid running afoul of these statutes ... do not drink alcohol until you are 21! Easy peezy!

Now, in the case of "internal possession" of drugs, we call that "under the influence." Also an easy crime to avoid - don't do drugs!

Quote:

---

Specifically law that makes it a "crime" to have any substance in your system (body) but where you do not have it on your person, or possession. IE: You have prescription medication in you, or even Marijuana etc. With our 'War On Drugs' pretty much anyone at some point during the year can be violating this.

---

Uh, no ... if you have consumed your prescription and are not operating a motor vehicle while impaired or wandering about unable to care for yourself or causing problems, you should be fine ... provided you have a prescription. If you are going to consume impairing substances - even with a doctor's order - do so in a place and manner that will not put you or others at risk (like, at home) and you should avod any law enforcement contacts.

Quote:

---

However, what about driving NOT impaired but you have a substance of any kind that would be detected should you have a urinalysis? AKA: Internal Possession ?

---

If you are acting high or inebriated, the police can contact you and, if they develop probable cause, arrest you. If you have consumed an impairing substance and are strolling down the street not giving the police any reason to make contact and arrest you, then you're fine. The "internal possession" would neither be an issue nor discovered if one was not under the influence or engaged in some activity that causes them to be noticed. Last time i checked, the police were not drawing blood from random strangers on the street.

Quote:

---

I have always maintained and thought -- as I'm sure most of the population does -- that if you have no drugs on you PERIOD, then you aren't breaking the law. (I'm not saying driving impaired) I mean in general.. anywhere.

---

If you have no drugs in your possession, you are correct - you would not be guilty of possession of a controlled substance. being under the influence is another matter entirely.

Quote:

---

So if you can't answer anything else,.. does the state of Alabama have this Internal Possession law?

---

Yes, they have laws against people being under the influence of controlled substances. You can search them yourself.

Quote:

---

An example of this law.. In South Dakota is cited here:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-...thdakota.shtml

---

Ah, yes, a drug dealer ... and informing him that he could either consent to give a urine sample or they would seek a judge's order to obtain it ... huh ...

But, every state is free to determine for itself what they want to do about such things.

First I have to state that in hindsight I should have left my personal viewpoints out of the original post. I can see it has skewed the potential for the question I asked to be answered without some general negative assumptions about my character and intentions.

In the future I will discuss things without such subjective matter interjected.

I also want to say I am not a criminal nor a citizen who wishes to engage in crimes. It is my sole intent to educate myself and obey the law(s). I am not in 'trouble' with the law in anyway and despite some disagreements with alot of our criminal code I , personally, understand that it is in my best interest and safety to follow legislative statutes/laws/ordinances .. et al.

In other words I am not breaking laws just because I don't like them. I believe the wrong impression was given.

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

I suppose ... but, generally, it only places those that are already skirting the edges of societal norms at risk.

---

Agreed,.. most of the time. I have witnessed some fair unjust acts due to law(s) and the enforcement of them in my area that has prompted me to work on educating myself so I can also educate others so they don't find themselves unwittingly breaking the law.

Case in example,.. A close friend of mine's mother (who had zero criminal history/record) was arrested on illegal possession of a prescription. Technically the 'law' was broken. A law in which her ignorance of such caused a situation that could easily have been prevented, saved thousands of dollars and so on. She had her daughters Tylenol 3 prescription in her purse as her daughter wishes for her to give them to her when she has menstrual cramps (what they are indicated for in this case). This has been the way this medication was handled for many years,.. and the mother was simply trying to protect her daughter (who is young of course) from any potential misuse of the medication. The daughter verified all of this for the police , yet because of the law she was charged and taken to jail until bonded out.

Her attorney had the charges dropped within a few weeks, so nothing came of it. However, it is one of those laws that many people are unaware of. Due to her 'possessing' it, even though it was her own daughter - and daughter confirmed the reason she did keep it with her,.. the law was broken. Thus enforced.

Quote:

---

Really? You do realize that the courts tend to affirm the vast majority of these laws, correct? And, the last time I checked, the courts were the arbiters of what is or is not Constitutional or permissible under the law. So, how then could a law that has withstood legal scrutiny be in violation of the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights?

There is a difference between not liking or agreeing with a law and it being unconstitutional.

---

I am aware of the process - but this is not a debate I wish to engage in, mainly because I am not well versed enough in these matters. Further there are people who would argue that a vast majority of non-violent criminal law, for example, is unconstitutional (traffic violations, registration, drug possession, and on the list goes) -- and then others who will argue the exact opposite. While both sides will have valid points. Perhaps I can better understand the plethora of laws developed and enforced with time.

Quote:

---

Maybe ... but, as long as you are not acting like a flangehead or behaving poorly, you should be okay.

---

Agreed again. However, I do think more education on our judicial system and the specifics of law in a non biased way is important. I think our people and country would benefit from such,.. perhaps a number of non violent people who are good people/citizens wouldn't get caught up in things due to ignorance of the law. Some of our (people in general) views on people behaving poorly or not can vary vastly.

Quote:

---

I suspect none state so explicitly, but many have implied this through interpretation of consumption and possession statutes. in CA, for instance, the last I heard there were some 15 counties (of 58) that still applied a form of "internal possession" in their prosecutions. I suppose they abide by the entirely reasonable and logical assumption that if you test positive for alcohol you clearly had been in possession of the alcohol at one time. There is an easy way to avoid running afoul of these statutes ... do not drink alcohol until you are 21! Easy peezy!

---

This is at the crux of my inquiry here. I know the alcohol example keeps surfacing but that law is quite clear as it is so predominantly, unfortunately, violated in our society -- I was interested more in specific law of a substance in the body equating to possession. Also I am not questioning the youthful/underage interpretation/law of alcohol consumption. To me, it is very clear -- Under 21, alcohol ingested, it is (by law) illegal.

Further, I suppose this law of 'internal possession' is one that is not largely enforced because unless one is obviously/visibly showing signs of something being wrong with them, highly impaired, falling asleep, acting very oddly etc.. there is just no way to know.

Quote:

---

Now, in the case of "internal possession" of drugs, we call that "under the influence." Also an easy crime to avoid - don't do drugs!

---

I am looking for facts, references to law that exist on this. Not how to avoid it. I don't do drugs, and am not worried about violating it -- I merely, objectively, am trying to find out factual information not just interpretation or generalizations -- especially ones based solely on minors and alcohol.

Quote:

---

Uh, no ... if you have consumed your prescription and are not operating a motor vehicle while impaired or wandering about unable to care for yourself or causing problems, you should be fine ... provided you have a prescription. If you are going to consume impairing substances - even with a doctor's order - do so in a place and manner that will not put you or others at risk (like, at home) and you should avod any law enforcement contacts.

---

In such a case where you are not operating a motor vehicle,.. but are profiled or caught up in some involvement with the police -- is it not a violation of an individuals rights to be required to submit some form of bodily fluid (alcohol aside) to prove your innocence with no issue at hand. I know this may seem improbable.. but there are many cases where people otherwise are not doing any 'crime' yet have contact with the police, perhaps completely as a lateral effect of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or law enforcement officer with an ethical issue. (I am not saying cops are bad/evil/corrupt -- but , as with all professions, there are going to be some bad apples.

So with that in mind, a person is then subject to the law. Which goes back to the root of the question,.. what does the law state. Don't get me wrong I am not saying this is a rampant problem, or even common, but knowing what you are lawfully/legally bound to do and not do is important. AKA: Knowing your rights doesn't always mean they are going to be respected. So knowing the law helps if one were to ever be told to submit a sample for testing , in this case, to prove to law enforcement they do not have specific metabolites in their system. (This is not referring to someone who is committing a crime such as impaired driving or disturbing the peace/public etc.)

Quote:

---

If you are acting high or inebriated, the police can contact you and, if they develop probable cause, arrest you. If you have consumed an impairing substance and are strolling down the street not giving the police any reason to make contact and arrest you, then you're fine. The "internal possession" would neither be an issue nor discovered if one was not under the influence or engaged in some activity that causes them to be noticed. Last time i checked, the police were not drawing blood from random strangers on the street.

---

Indeed -- I completely agree. That said, in this example the person is arrested for suspicion of essentially 'acting abnormal' - which leads to is there a substance in their body causing them to be noticed (alcohol discluded) are there laws,.. that make any substance in their body subject to 'possession' of the substance. Which would be a felony in my state for example. You see knowing this law dictates whether the person is bound to give a sample of their bodily fluid (urine, blood, etc) while incarcerated. Without the law, would this fall under "probable cause" and then "search and seizure of one's property/persons" -- which then gets into bodily fluid for testing.

If the person were arrested, then told they had to submit a urine sample while in jail. Then it came back positive for , say, an anti-anxiety medication. Then the person now has to prove the validity of the substance being in their system.. via: Doctor/Pharmacy records etc. ?

It becomes a bit tricky.

If there is a law of Internal Possession - then refusal of such test would not incriminate a person. Further, even if the person is legitimately prescribed the substance in question it seems , to me, like it borders on violating an individuals rights.

If there is not a law that applies -- then things are altered quite a bit.

Quote:

---

If you have no drugs in your possession, you are correct - you would not be guilty of possession of a controlled substance. being under the influence is another matter entirely.

---

Perhaps I can clarify then,.. I mean drug metabolites in your system, but the person is *not* impaired. Technically under the influence happens any time you take any medication. Though it's implied meaning is (and correct me if I'm wrong) an impairment created by such substance that creates an issue. IE: Public safety issue, a personal safety issue, a mental health (behavioral) issue and so on.

In the article I linked the person was not in possession in the traditional sense, but essentially was charged with possession due to the law of "Internal Possession". It applies specifically in some states and not others. As I mentioned I have searched, and have found that much -- but the exact code and which states specifically I did not find.

Quote:

---

Yes, they have laws against people being under the influence of controlled substances. You can search them yourself.

---

I have,.. which is what prompted this thread. I was hoping someone very familiar with the law and well versed on researching the law could assist in referencing these laws. :)


At any rate. I DO appreciate your reply, and your opinion on the matter.

Thank you, (And thank you for , I assume, your role as a peace officer!) -

I won't get into the long debate you have entered but address only a few points:


the mother charged with possession:

as you stated, the charges were dropped. Apparently upon initial review of the situation, the arresting officers had reason to believe the mother was in fact breaking the law. If you want to get very technical, unless the child was a minor, the mother could actually have been found guilty at trial. While that, I believe, would be a miscarriage of justice if the facts as you present them are true, by the technical standards of the law, the verdict would be proper.

That is why we have the process we do: initial belief a law was broken, charges presented, defendant defends their position, court decides. In her case, things worked as they should have.

and to the issue you do not intend to debate: the constitutionality non-violent criminal laws

Quote:

---

I am aware of the process - but this is not a debate I wish to engage in, mainly because I am not well versed enough in these matters. Further there are people who would argue that a vast majority of non-violent criminal law, for example, is unconstitutional (traffic violations, registration, drug possession, and on the list goes) -- and then others who will argue the exact opposite. While both sides will have valid points. Perhaps I can better understand the plethora of laws developed and enforced with time.

---

Your belief is incorrect. When both sides actually do have valid points, the courts are arranged to review the law and determine whether it is constitutional or not. Generally, those that believe they have valid arguments against the law are simply incorrect. There is no valid Constitutional basis for arguments against what you have listed. If you believe there is, you are welcome to violate said law and contest it all the way to the SCOTUS if you choose, and can afford it. Yes, that is the biggest problem I see in our legal system; the cost of litigation. Many people take plea agreements or are found guilty simply because they cannot afford proper legal representation. The upside to the cost though is that it assists in not flooding our courts with some of the frivolous claims. If you review the penal system and the amount of court filings generated by the detainees within that system, you will understand my point as they have access to legal assistance most people don't and they have the time to play games with the legal system, which most people don't.

Jk: Thank you for a thoughtful , non judgmental reply. I appreciate it.

In response, I am tempted to bring up points about the intention of the constitution and how many of our laws violate it and our individual rights (which are a piece of the same fabric in my mind). Though, it is a healthy debate, and I think more people should have it. Especially those who lean very much to one side, and the other to the other. It helps both sides better understand the system and think. The people who are of the "live free or die" type attitude and belief.. that without corpus dilecti there is no crime, or how can the 'state' be a plaintiff and all their arguments they present which *technically* make sense could be pulled a little further to the middle of pragmatism, and how real life works. The other side that is nearing or on the fence of "If they break the law (doesn't matter if it is right or wrong, minor, violent or non violent, etc) lock them up and throw away the key!)" -- Perhaps these people could be a little more engaged to the fact that maybe we have (over the past 60 years) piled legislation upon legislation that is very hard to 'change' due to political perception and often,.. in terms of certain judges and courts ("That is just the way it is!").

There is the argument of our fiscal policy in regards to the judicial system. We are nearly -17,000,000,000,000 in debt and our courts are clogged, our jails are clogged, our prisons are clogged. So reducing some of the sentencing minimums, and reclassifying some of the non-violent "crimes" -- ie: Drug possession for personal use, and so on may be a good thing for the 'overall' good of our country and people. Less people in jails, less in prisons, (at $30,000 per year, per head), and less in the court system which cost taxpayers, you and I, often more money per year than I think we often realize. Then one could get into the whole 4 decades long war of "The war on drugs" -- I believe intentions were in the right place.. but if one is to actually research the facts, statistics, the amount of money spent, lives lost, and what we have actually gained from all of this behavior. -- Well,.. I think most objective people would give at least a LITTLE creedance to the notion that maybe it is time we start making some shifts, changes, and policy/legislation change to save money, not have so many people who are non violent in places that (imo) could , over time, leave them worse off than when they went in.

I know it is tempting,.. but please don't respond to the above remarks. :)

I know this area of debate can explode into the realm of indefinite back and forth rhetoric. I respect all others views and have my own. In the mean time, I obey the law and work to educate myself on said laws of all type (not just criminal),.. so I understand how the Republic we live in works in my daily life. Again, as I said in a previous response I think more education to the people on the laws civil and criminal should be a priority -- (More understanding of the Judicial , Legislative, and Executive) branches of government and perhaps a mandatory LAW 101 in highschool.

I remember when I was in school,.. learning about the constitution and bill of rights very briefly -- (meaning we didn't spend months or even weeks on the subject) -- Though it is only now at the age of 33 that I have really come to realize it might be a good idea to really read the consistutional amendments, bill of rights, state bill of rights, state constitution, talk with my senators and so on -- which I have found the Senators are more easily accessible than I thought and ultimately that I have ALOT to learn.

I would venture to guess that the 'majority' of our US population has no desire to learn of the law, or really get into such intellectual debate that actually causes you to think about subjects that have a 'boring' connotation to many. Which is unfortunate. I know I am highly passionate about learning these things, but 5 years ago in my 20's.. Not so much.

I am really learning how ignorant of the laws I am/was (Even though I was/am obeying them). I'd love to pick the brain of some judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, congressmen, senators, and so on about my views and how they match up with the REALITY of how things work now, today -- and where things are leaning. As we have to be an adaptive society (which we always have been) and as we learn and things change.. so must *some* of our laws. Not saying we need to just veto a bunch of laws on the books,.. but updating them due to scientific/medical and technological understanding that has surfaced isn't being a 'push over'. It is just being smart.

Example: The criminal code for much of my state was written in the early to middle 1970's, and goes largely unchanged. Don't get me wrong, just because a law is old doesn't mean it needs changing on that merit alone (case in example: Our constitution is quite old) ;) -- but, if we have issues within the system regarding the outcome and results of the cumulative effect a law or set of laws has; then, perhaps we should have a good open minded debate about what should be done to steer it in a more proper direction.

I will leave it at that. --

Any further questions on these matters I will simply break into simply questions and post them without personal bias.

I will continue to research and perhaps I will discover more on the original question of which states specifically have Internal Possession law(s) on their books. Other than juveniles/minors re: alcohol it seems this really is more of an implied law that varies a bit from county to county, state to state and is not , on it's OWN accord, prosecuted very often -- but is more of a secondary characteristic to a crime, be it a moving violation or disorderly conduct, etc.

You guys have a great week!