Payment PlansCharged with Bringing Drugs into a Jail or Prison in California?
PC § 4573 and Related Charges Carry Felony Convictions, State Prison Sentences, and Permanent Consequences — But the Prosecution Must Prove Specific Knowledge and Intent Elements That Are Frequently Challenged and Defeated.
California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended charges of bringing or possessing controlled substances in a custodial facility — including PC § 4573 (bringing controlled substances into jail or prison), PC § 4573.5 and PC § 4573.8 (alcohol and other substances), and PC § 4573.6 (possession inside) — through knowledge and intent challenges, suppression motions, charge reductions, and diversion pathways in criminal courts across every county in California. These cases are prosecuted aggressively, but many turn on whether the defendant knew the substance was present and intended to bring it in. Both elements are contestable. Build your defense now.
IMMEDIATE STEPS IF CHARGED UNDER PC § 4573 OR RELATED STATUTES:
- Do not make statements to law enforcement, correctional officers, or prosecutors without counsel — statements about knowledge, ownership, or how the substance got there are the prosecution's strongest evidence for the knowledge and intent elements that are most often successfully challenged
- Do not assume a guilty plea is inevitable — these are serious felonies, but knowledge defenses, suppression, and reductions frequently produce significantly better outcomes including dismissal and diversion
- Preserve documentation — circumstances of discovery, prescription records, evidence the substance belonged to someone else, notes about what officers said, and any details about facility surveillance
- Contact experienced counsel immediately — facility video is often overwritten quickly; knowledge and intent defenses must be developed from the specific facts before the prosecution's narrative solidifies
Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174
THE STAKES ARE REAL
Bringing drugs or certain other substances into a jail or prison is treated as a serious security threat. PC § 4573 is a straight felony with 2, 3, or 4 years in state prison. Related charges — PC § 4573.5, PC § 4573.6, and PC § 4573.8 — can be wobblers but still carry felony exposure in many cases.
A conviction means:
- Permanent felony record — highly disqualifying for employment in healthcare, education, government, and security
- Professional license reporting, discipline, suspension, or revocation
- Immigration consequences — controlled substance offense deportability; potential aggravated felony if distribution inside is alleged
- Housing and employment barriers
Many cases involve visitors, family members, or professionals who did not knowingly or intentionally bring contraband. The gap between "substance was found" and "you knowingly brought it in" is where strong defenses exist.
Quick Charge Comparison:
| Charge | Statute | Classification | Key Elements | Typical Sentence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bringing controlled substances | PC § 4573 | Straight Felony | Knowing introduction into facility | 2, 3, or 4 years state prison |
| Bringing alcohol/other substances | PC § 4573.5 | Wobbler | Bringing non-controlled prohibited items | Misdemeanor or felony |
| Possession inside (controlled) | PC § 4573.6 | Straight Felony | Knowing possession inside | 2, 3, or 4 years state prison |
| Possession inside (alcohol/other) | PC § 4573.8 | Wobbler | Possession of non-controlled items inside | Misdemeanor or felony |
Call (800) 755-5174 for a free 24/7 consultation.
WHAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE — AND HOW TO CHALLENGE IT
For PC § 4573 and PC § 4573.6, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt:
- You knew the substance was present in your belongings, clothing, or on your person
- You knew its nature as a controlled substance or prohibited item
- You acted with intent to bring or possess it inside the facility
Each element is independently challengeable — and defeating any one defeats the charge entirely.
Key Defenses at a Glance:
- Lack of knowledge: You didn't know the substance was in your bag, clothing, or belongings — common when items were given or placed by others
- Prescription medication: Lawfully prescribed controlled substance transported without full awareness of facility rules or documentation requirements
- Suppression: Unconstitutional search of vehicle, person, or belongings before or at facility entry
- Wobbler reduction: Negotiate felony down to misdemeanor where facts and substance type support it
- Diversion: PC § 1001.95, mental health diversion (PC § 1001.36), or military diversion (PC § 1001.80) where available
Call (800) 755-5174 to evaluate the specific knowledge and search issues in your case.
INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE EXPLANATIONS — HOW EACH DEFENSE WORKS
Defense One: Lack of Knowledge — The Most Important and Most Frequently Successful Defense
PC § 4573 is not a strict liability offense. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the controlled substance was present and knew what it was. A defendant who did not know the substance was in their belongings — for any of the specific reasons below — did not commit PC § 4573 regardless of whether the substance was physically found on or near them. This is the most important defense in PC § 4573 cases — and it is the defense most frequently and most successfully developed from the specific facts.
The unknowing carrier scenario — the most common PC § 4573 fact pattern: The defendant was given a bag, jacket, package, or other item by another person — most commonly by an incarcerated person's associate, family member, or acquaintance — and transported it to or into the facility without knowing the item contained a controlled substance. Visitors and family members of incarcerated persons are specifically targeted for this manipulation by those attempting to introduce drugs into a facility. The defendant trusted the person who gave them the item, transported it in good faith, and had no awareness of the substance's presence. The specific circumstances of how the item came to be in the defendant's possession, what they were told about its contents, the nature of their relationship with the person who gave them the item, and any other evidence consistent with genuine lack of awareness are developed and presented as the foundation of the knowledge defense.
The borrowed or shared belongings scenario: The substance was found in a bag, item of clothing, jacket, purse, or other belonging that the defendant had borrowed from another person or that was regularly used by multiple people, and the defendant did not know the substance was present in that item. Where the specific item in which the substance was found was not exclusively the defendant's and was regularly used or accessed by others, the knowledge element is challenged through evidence of the item's shared use and the defendant's specific lack of awareness of the substance's presence.
The prescription medication — unknowing controlled substance scenario: The defendant was transporting prescription medication that was lawfully prescribed to them but did not know the medication was classified as a controlled substance, did not know the documentation requirements for bringing medication into a correctional facility, or did not know that the specific form in which they were carrying the medication — outside its original labeled container, in a pill organizer, or mixed with other medications — was problematic. Many defendants charged under PC § 4573 involving prescription medications are not drug criminals. They are patients who take prescribed medications and who went to a facility visit without fully understanding the intersection of their prescription, the controlled substance classification, and the facility's rules. The knowledge and intent elements are challenged through the specific circumstances of the prescription, the defendant's history of lawful use, and the absence of any evidence of criminal intent.
Defense Two: Suppression — Constitutional Challenges to the Search
While correctional facility entrance searches operate under different Fourth Amendment standards than general law enforcement searches — persons entering custodial facilities have a reduced expectation of privacy at the entry point — specific search circumstances in PC § 4573 cases are still subject to constitutional challenge.
Vehicle searches in facility parking lots: A search of a vehicle parked in a correctional facility's parking lot — before the defendant has reached the facility entrance — is subject to standard Fourth Amendment automobile exception analysis. The officer must have probable cause to search the vehicle. A vehicle search initiated without probable cause, based on a hunch, or extended beyond its lawful scope is unconstitutional — and the substance discovered during that search is suppressed under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
Searches based on prior unconstitutional stops: Where the defendant was stopped, detained, or searched in circumstances leading up to their facility visit — a traffic stop, a street detention — and that prior stop or detention was unconstitutional, the evidence discovered in searches following from that unlawful stop is suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Scope violations: Even where an initial search is authorized, a search that exceeds its authorized scope — examining containers, areas, or items beyond what was authorized — produces suppression of evidence found in the unauthorized areas.
Facility surveillance footage — which captures the events leading to the defendant's detention, the specific circumstances of the search, and the discovery of the substance — is identified and preservation demands issued immediately upon retention. This footage is frequently critical to both the suppression and knowledge defense analyses and may be overwritten rapidly on facility retention schedules that differ from standard law enforcement 30 to 90 day cycles.
Defense Three: Prescription Medication and Authorization Defense
A defendant who possessed a controlled substance pursuant to a valid prescription and who was attempting to comply with the facility's procedures for authorized medications has a specific and frequently viable defense to the intent element of PC § 4573. While possession of prescription medication inside a custodial facility without proper authorization is generally prohibited, the specific authorization procedures at the specific facility, the defendant's knowledge of those procedures, their attempt to comply, and the specific circumstances of the discovery all affect the viability of the defense. In cases where the defendant declared the medication, attempted to follow the facility's procedures, or was simply unaware of the documentation requirements, the criminal intent element is challenged directly and frequently successfully.
Defense Four: Wobbler Reduction — PC § 4573.5 and PC § 4573.8
Where the specific substance found is not a controlled substance within PC § 4573's coverage — or where the specific circumstances support charging under a wobbler statute rather than the straight felony PC § 4573 — charge reduction to a wobbler is pursued aggressively. The wobbler classification of PC § 4573.5 and PC § 4573.8 creates a reduction opportunity absent from PC § 4573 — and a misdemeanor resolution eliminates state prison exposure, significantly reduces professional license consequences, and for non-U.S. citizen defendants can affect the immigration classification of the conviction significantly.
Defense Five: Diversion
PC 1000 DEJ is not available for PC § 4573 charges. However, PC § 1001.95 misdemeanor diversion is available for misdemeanor-level charges — including misdemeanor PC § 4573.5 and PC § 4573.8 — in the court's discretion, and the motion is pursued in every qualifying case. Drug court programs in many California counties may accept defendants charged with these offenses in appropriate circumstances. Mental health diversion under PC § 1001.36 is available where a qualifying mental health condition contributed to the charged conduct — and many PC § 4573 cases involve defendants whose relationship with an incarcerated person created emotional vulnerability that a mental health condition contributed to. Military diversion under PC § 1001.80 is available for qualifying veterans. Every available diversion pathway is assessed in every case.
Defense Six: Identity and Constructive Possession Challenge
In cases where the substance was found in a location accessible to multiple people — a vehicle with multiple occupants, a shared bag, a common area — the prosecution's attribution of possession to this specific defendant is challenged. The constructive possession framework — requiring proof that this defendant had specific dominion and control over the substance — is applied where the evidence is consistent with the substance belonging to another person with equal or greater access.
Defense Seven: Knowledge of Nature Challenge
Even where the defendant knew a substance was present, PC § 4573 requires proof they knew it was a controlled substance. A defendant who genuinely believed the substance was a legal supplement, a legal over-the-counter medication, or another non-controlled substance did not have the required knowledge of nature. This defense is developed through the specific circumstances of how the substance came to the defendant's possession and what they were told or believed about it.
Defense Eight: Laboratory Analysis Challenge
The prosecution must prove through formal laboratory analysis that the substance was in fact a controlled substance. Chain of custody violations, methodology errors, and contamination challenges apply in PC § 4573 cases just as in simple possession cases. Where the laboratory analysis is successfully challenged, the foundation of the charge is directly undermined.
PC § 4573 CHARGES AND IMMIGRATION — CRITICAL FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS
A PC § 4573 felony conviction carries serious immigration consequences — and the immigration analysis must be conducted from the very first consultation before any plea is entered.
Federal Immigration Consequences
A PC § 4573 felony conviction constitutes:
- A controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) — triggering deportability for non-U.S. citizens convicted after admission to the United States
- Where the prosecution's theory involves drug introduction for distribution or sale inside the facility, the conviction may approach aggravated felony drug trafficking status under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) — triggering mandatory deportation with essentially no discretionary relief available, even for long-term lawful permanent residents
A single felony PC § 4573 conviction — even with a suspended sentence and probation — can trigger mandatory deportation proceedings, bars to naturalization, and permanent bars to re-entry.
What Non-U.S. Citizens Must Do Before Any Plea:
- The immigration consequences of the specific PC § 4573 charge — including whether the specific conduct alleged and any plea entered would constitute a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), or both — must be analyzed before any plea is entered; the specific theory of the prosecution and what the plea admits determines which immigration consequence is triggered
- Every suppression opportunity must be assessed because a suppression dismissal — producing no conviction and no plea — is the most immigration-protective outcome available; a suppression dismissal eliminates all immigration consequences from the charge entirely
- Charge reduction to misdemeanor — where available under the wobbler statutes — must be assessed as an immigration priority alongside the criminal defense strategy, because the immigration classification of a misdemeanor conviction may differ significantly from that of a felony conviction under the same general conduct
- No plea to any PC § 4573 or related felony charge should be entered without a full understanding of the federal immigration consequences and a clear assessment of whether the knowledge defense, suppression, or charge reduction is achievable on the specific facts
Immigration analysis for non-U.S. citizens is conducted from the very first consultation in every PC § 4573 case.
HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS THESE CASES
David Chesley personally handles every case — focusing on the specific facts of how the substance was discovered, rapidly preserving facility video, challenging knowledge and intent, pursuing suppression where available, and coordinating immigration protection or diversion. All defenses run simultaneously from day one. Southern, Central, and Northern California, every county, every major jurisdiction — available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No hand-offs. No junior associates.
Core strategies pursued immediately:
Knowledge and intent analysis from day one — the specific circumstances of how the substance was found, what the defendant knew about its presence, how it came to be in their possession or belongings, and all evidence consistent with lack of knowledge examined immediately.
Immediate evidence preservation — facility surveillance footage, booking records, and all objective evidence of the discovery circumstances identified and preservation demands issued before footage is overwritten.
Prescription medication and authorization analysis — where the substance was a lawfully prescribed medication, the prescription, facility procedures, and defendant's compliance analyzed for knowledge and intent defense.
Diversion and reduction assessment — every available pathway including PC § 1001.95, drug court, mental health and military diversion, and wobbler reduction assessed from the first consultation.
Immigration analysis — consequences of every available charge and plea analyzed before any plea is entered; suppression and charge reduction pursued as immigration protection priorities.
Free, confidential case review — available 24/7, no obligation. 📞 (800) 755-5174 | 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com
YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.
The prosecution must prove knowledge and intent beyond a reasonable doubt — and the specific circumstances of how the substance was found frequently create genuine defense opportunities. Common resolutions:
- Knowledge element defeated — defendant demonstrated no knowledge substance was in bag given by another person; prosecution unable to establish knowledge beyond reasonable doubt; charge dismissed
- Suppression granted — vehicle search in parking lot before facility entry lacked probable cause; substance suppressed; PC § 4573 charge dismissed
- Prescription medication defense succeeded — defendant transported lawfully prescribed controlled substance; no criminal intent established; charge not sustained
- Unknowing carrier acquitted at trial — defendant transported package without knowledge of contents; not guilty verdict returned
- Charge reduced from felony to misdemeanor — specific substance not within PC § 4573's coverage; charge reduced to PC § 4573.5 misdemeanor; state prison exposure eliminated
- PC § 1001.95 diversion granted — qualifying misdemeanor charge; diversion motion filed and granted; program completed; charge dismissed; no conviction recorded
- Mental health diversion granted — defendant's mental health condition contributed to conduct; PC § 1001.36 diversion pursued; charge dismissed; treatment provided
- Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen; knowledge challenge and suppression motion pursued simultaneously; charge dismissed without plea; all immigration consequences avoided
WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY
Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7
David Chesley personally handles PC § 4573 defense in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, San Francisco, Sacramento, Fresno, San Jose, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and every other jurisdiction statewide. Available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week — because PC § 4573 cases move quickly, facility surveillance is overwritten rapidly, and the knowledge defense must be developed from the specific facts before the prosecution's narrative solidifies.
Straight talk, always
PC § 4573 cases range from situations where the knowledge defense is strong because the defendant genuinely did not know the substance was in their belongings — to situations where a prescription medication defense applies — to situations where the search was constitutionally defective — to situations where the focus must shift to charge reduction, diversion, and immigration protection. You deserve honest counsel about which situation you are actually in. No false promises. No sugarcoating.
Multi-front strategy from day one
Knowledge challenge, intent challenge, suppression, prescription defense, charge reduction, diversion, and immigration analysis are all assessed and pursued simultaneously. The most important defense depends on the specific facts — and all available defenses are identified from the first consultation before any single pathway is pursued to the exclusion of others.
Flexible payment plans
The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone charged with PC § 4573 goes without experienced legal representation.
Representative Results:
- PC § 4573 charge dismissed — defendant demonstrated through specific evidence that the controlled substance was placed in their bag by another person without their knowledge; prosecution unable to establish knowledge element beyond reasonable doubt; charge dismissed before trial
- Suppression granted — defendant's vehicle searched in facility parking lot before reaching the entrance; search found to lack probable cause; controlled substance suppressed as fruit of unlawful search; PC § 4573 charge dismissed
- Prescription medication defense succeeded — defendant transported lawfully prescribed opioid pain medication to facility visit; specific circumstances of transportation and defendant's history of lawful prescription use established absence of criminal intent; charge not sustained
- Unknowing carrier acquitted at trial — defendant transported package from incarcerated individual's associate without knowledge of contents; specific evidence of defendant's genuine lack of awareness of substance presented to jury; not guilty verdict returned
- Charge reduced from PC § 4573 felony to PC § 4573.5 misdemeanor — specific substance found not to constitute a scheduled controlled substance within PC § 4573's coverage; charge negotiated to wobbler and resolved as misdemeanor; state prison exposure and most serious collateral consequences eliminated
- PC § 1001.95 misdemeanor diversion granted — qualifying misdemeanor charge arising from unknowing possession; PC § 1001.95 motion filed and granted by court; program completed; charge dismissed; no felony conviction recorded
- Mental health diversion granted — defendant's anxiety disorder and specific emotional vulnerability in relationship with incarcerated family member contributed to charged conduct; PC § 1001.36 diversion pursued and granted; charge dismissed; treatment and support provided
- Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen defendant facing controlled substance deportability under PC § 4573 felony charge; knowledge element challenge filed and suppression motion pursued simultaneously; prosecution unable to establish knowledge element; charge dismissed without any plea; all immigration consequences eliminated
Client Feedback:
"I brought a bag to visit my brother in jail and had no idea it had drugs in it. David built the knowledge defense, showed I had absolutely no knowledge of what was inside, and the charge was dismissed. The prosecution couldn't prove I knew. I was terrified and David was the only one who explained I had a real defense." — Anonymous former client
"I was carrying my own prescription pain medication in my purse for a prison visit. I had no idea I wasn't allowed to have it or that it was a problem. David showed there was no criminal intent — I was just a patient with my medication. Charge dropped." — Anonymous former client
"The officer searched my car in the jail parking lot before I even reached the entrance. David showed there was no probable cause for that search. The evidence was suppressed and the charge was dismissed completely." — Anonymous former client
"As a non-citizen, a conviction would have meant deportation. David challenged the knowledge element and filed a suppression motion simultaneously. The prosecution couldn't prove I knew about the drugs and the charge was dismissed without any plea. I am still in this country." — Anonymous former client
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Is PC § 4573 always a felony?
Yes — PC § 4573 is a straight felony with 2, 3, or 4 years in state prison. There is no misdemeanor option under PC § 4573 itself. However, related charges — PC § 4573.5 and PC § 4573.8 — are wobblers that can be charged as misdemeanors or felonies. Where the specific substance or circumstances support charging under a wobbler rather than PC § 4573, charge reduction is pursued aggressively from the first consultation.
What if I didn't know the drugs were in my belongings?
Lack of knowledge is a complete defense. PC § 4573 is not a strict liability offense — the prosecution must prove you knew the substance was present and knew what it was. A defendant who did not know the substance was in their bag, clothing, or other belongings — because it was placed there by someone else, because it belonged to another person, or because they had no awareness of its presence — did not commit PC § 4573. This is the most important and most frequently successful defense in these cases.
Can prescription medication lead to PC § 4573 charges?
Yes — if the medication is a scheduled controlled substance and is brought into the facility without proper authorization. However, many such cases are successfully defended on knowledge and intent grounds. A defendant who was transporting their own lawfully prescribed medication without awareness of the controlled substance classification or the facility's documentation requirements often has a genuine and viable defense. The specific circumstances of the prescription, the defendant's history of lawful use, and the absence of criminal intent are developed and presented in every prescription medication case.
Can the search that discovered the substance be challenged?
In many circumstances, yes. While facility entrance searches operate under different Fourth Amendment standards, vehicle searches in facility parking lots before the defendant reaches the entrance are subject to standard automobile exception probable cause requirements. Searches lacking probable cause, searches exceeding their authorized scope, and searches based on prior unconstitutional stops or detentions are all grounds for suppression. Suppression of the physical substance typically produces immediate dismissal.
What are the immigration consequences of a PC § 4573 conviction?
Serious and potentially permanent for non-U.S. citizens. A PC § 4573 felony conviction constitutes a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) — triggering deportability. Where distribution inside the facility is alleged, the conviction may approach aggravated felony status under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) — mandatory deportation with essentially no relief available. Immigration analysis must begin before any plea is entered.
Is diversion available?
PC 1000 DEJ is not available for PC § 4573. However, PC § 1001.95 misdemeanor diversion, drug court, mental health diversion under PC § 1001.36, and military diversion under PC § 1001.80 may be available depending on the specific charge and the defendant's circumstances. Where the charge can be reduced to a misdemeanor, diversion options expand significantly — making charge reduction and diversion a combined strategic goal in every qualifying case.
Are payment plans available?
Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone charged with PC § 4573 goes without experienced legal representation. Call to discuss options during your free consultation.
More questions? We are available 24/7 — free consultation, no obligation, no pressure. 📞 (800) 755-5174
FREE CONSULTATION — CALL NOW — 24/7
These cases move fast and turn on early knowledge and intent analysis and immediate video preservation — and the evidence that wins PC § 4573 defenses is the most time-sensitive evidence in any drug prosecution. Every day without experienced defense counsel is a day the facility surveillance footage that captured the events leading to the defendant's detention, the circumstances of the search, and the discovery of the substance — footage that could establish the defendant's genuine lack of awareness, the unconstitutional search, or the specific facts that contradict the prosecution's theory of knowing introduction — moves closer to being permanently overwritten on the facility's rapid retention schedule before a defense attorney has issued the preservation demand that protects it. Every day the prosecution's knowledge theory develops unchallenged is a day the characterization of the defendant as someone who knowingly brought drugs into a custodial facility solidifies into the charging document and the preliminary hearing presentation — without a defense attorney developing the specific evidence of how the substance came to be in the defendant's belongings, who placed it there, what the defendant was told about it, and why the prosecution cannot establish knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt on those specific facts. Every day a non-U.S. citizen defendant faces a PC § 4573 felony charge without immigration-specific analysis of the 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) deportability consequences and the potential 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) aggravated felony exposure is a day the mandatory deportation that a felony drug conviction produces moves closer to becoming permanent without the knowledge challenge and suppression strategy that could prevent it. Every day the prescription medication defense goes unanalyzed in a case where the defendant transported their own lawfully prescribed medication is a day the criminal intent element that is genuinely absent from the defendant's conduct goes uncontested — when a defense attorney developing that argument today could defeat the charge before a plea is entered that produces a permanent felony record.
Don't plead guilty before every defense has been assessed. Don't assume the knowledge element is proven. Don't assume the search was valid. And don't wait. If you have been charged with bringing drugs into a jail, prison, or other custodial facility in California, call now.
The Law Offices of David Chesley offer a free, confidential consultation available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No judgment. No pressure. Honest assessment tailored to your specific circumstances — including knowledge and intent analysis, suppression opportunities, immigration risks, and every available diversion pathway.
Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone charged with PC § 4573 goes without the experienced defense this charge demands.
David Chesley handles PC § 4573 defense in criminal courts across all of California — Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, San Bernardino County, Ventura County, Santa Barbara County, Kern County, Fresno County, Sacramento County, Alameda County, Santa Clara County, San Francisco County, Contra Costa County, San Joaquin County, Stanislaus County, Monterey County, and every other jurisdiction statewide.
Se habla español.
📞 (800) 755-5174 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com 🌐 www.chesleylawyers.com
"PC § 4573 requires proof that you knowingly brought a controlled substance into a custodial facility — not merely that one was found in your belongings. The knowledge and intent elements are frequently the most contestable parts of these cases. My commitment is developing the specific facts of what you actually knew and intended, challenging any unconstitutional search, and pursuing every available reduction or diversion pathway from the first day." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney
