Can You Be Convicted of Drug Possession if the Drug Vial Had No Fingerprints

My question involves criminal law for the state of: MI

Someone tipped the police off on someone I know, telling them he used drugs. They executed a search warrant at his work, and allegedly found a small glass vial containing a residue amount of drug in his unlocked desk. They then submitted the vial for fingerprint analysis, and it came back without any fingerprints. My friend vehemently insists that the drugs were not his, and that they were planted by police.

Does he have any sort of defense against possession in this case if there were no fingerprints on the glass vial. If not, then why would they even conduct fingerprint analysis on the vial?

Someone you know needs to get a lawyer. "Not mine" is not a defense to a possession charge. It is extremely doubtful that the police planted it during the search. If they wanted to plant incriminating evidence, they'd have done something more clear cut. Fingerprints would make the case clearer, but the lack doesn't mean there isn't enough to proceed with a case. A bigger issue may be what the "residue" means. It varies from state to state with what is needed to sustain a possession charge. I'm not particularly interested in looking up Michigan law for you becasue you're a third party and likely don't have all the facts anyhow, so this whole thread is largely moot. In Virginia, for example, a residue (i.e., not a measurable amount) can not be used to show possession. It doesn't even support a paraphernalia charge when found on things that aren't inherently drug related such as a pill bottle or plastic bag.

Thanks for your quick reply. It was actually 20 mg of a schedule 1 stimulant, which probably doesn't qualify as residue since it was a measurable quantity. I looked it up and there is an MCL that states that residue does qualify as possession regardless.

I was mostly just curious about the role that the fingerprints and the unlocked workplace drawer play in actually securing a conviction. Sounds it won't do him much good. Thank you for your insight.

Again, someone you know needs an attorney. Plain and simple.

So the idea here is that some random person falsely accused your friend of having drugs in his desk, the random person called the police and somehow came up with enough evidence to support the issuance of a search warrant, the police came out with a warrant to search your friend's desk, they didn't find anything and, rather than going after the person who made a false police report, they decided to find a near-empty glass vial and plant it in your friend's desk so they could charge him with possession of a controlled substance?

Okay....

Does this go back to the fantasy scenario you have been asking about, with the $billion dollar investigation involving dozens of police agencies that somehow disappeared into the vapor, along with every public record of the incident?

Thanks KIA..... I always appreciated your humor.

They didn't actually need a search warrant, because it was in a state-owned public facility. I got that part wrong. Regardless, I've heard its possible to secure a search warrant based on witness statement alone.

Also, all this actually happened. I have the records, and I'd be more than happy to forward them to you. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if you already knew that because you brought up a couple points I never discussed on this forum, such as the cost of the investigation and the multiple police agencies involved. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a police agency even subpoenaed you for my user information... I'm still trying to figure out the activity on my account that happened earlier this month, since I haven't even logged in since August.

You guys have all reviewed the post hx here, right?

As to the thread heading question, I continue to maintain, as I have in the past, that the writers of CSI and Law and Order have a lot to answer for.

CBG doesn't have much patience for me. She thinks I'm mentally ill and delusional. In my defense, some of my past threads have sparked some thoughtful discussion among your volunteers.

^^^Damn straight. I think you're a troll.

Nor am I the only one.

Gee thanks... Most trolls post deliberately provocative or inflammatory posts to upset and spark argument. I don't really see that as being the case with myself. Most of my thread topics have been legitimate legal questions that haven't been asked here before. I figured I was adding to the community.