• Home
• Drug Crimes
• Maintaining a Place for Drug Sales/Use (HS 11366)

Charged with Maintaining a Place for Drug Sales or Use in California?

HS § 11366 Charges Require Proof of Specific Knowledge and Specific Purpose — and the Evidence That Establishes Those Elements Is Frequently Challenged, Suppressed, or Defeated Entirely.

California criminal defense attorney David Chesley has successfully defended charges of maintaining a place for the purpose of selling, giving away, or using controlled substances under HS § 11366 — through suppression motions, knowledge and purpose challenges, and charge reductions — in criminal courts across every county in California. HS § 11366 frequently arises from residential or vehicle searches, but the charge requires far more than the mere presence of drugs. The prosecution must prove the defendant maintained the location and that the specific purpose was drug-related activity. Both elements are independently challengeable. Build your defense now.

IMMEDIATE STEPS IF CHARGED UNDER HS § 11366:

• Do not make statements about the location, your control over it, or your knowledge of any drugs without counsel — these statements often establish the key "maintaining" and "purpose" elements the prosecution must prove; statements that feel innocent frequently lock in the exact admissions the prosecution needs
• Do not assume the charge is minor — HS § 11366 is a wobbler; a felony conviction carries state prison exposure and serious collateral consequences including professional license jeopardy and immigration consequences as serious as a drug trafficking conviction for non-U.S. citizens
• Preserve documentation of the legitimate uses of the location, evidence of others' control and access, and any facts showing drug activity was incidental to those legitimate purposes
• Contact experienced counsel immediately — residential searches require fast suppression analysis; dashcam and body camera footage is overwritten in 30 to 90 days

Call now for a free, confidential consultation — available 24/7. 📞 (800) 755-5174

THE STAKES ARE REAL — HS § 11366 IS A WOBBLER WITH SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES

HS § 11366 is charged when police allege a residence, apartment, hotel room, or vehicle was maintained for drug sales, giving away, or use. It is a wobbler — chargeable as either a misdemeanor or felony depending on the facts and prior record.

A conviction can mean:

• Misdemeanor: Up to 1 year county jail plus probation plus permanent drug record
• Felony: 16 months, 2, or 3 years state prison plus permanent felony record
• Professional license reporting, discipline, suspension, or revocation
• Immigration consequences — controlled substance offense deportability; potential aggravated felony exposure if sales activity is alleged
• Housing and employment barriers; possible civil asset forfeiture

The gap between "drugs were found at a location you were associated with" and "you maintained it specifically for drug activity" is where strong defenses exist.

Common Scenarios and Defenses:

Call (800) 755-5174 for a free 24/7 consultation.

WHAT HS § 11366 REQUIRES — AND WHERE THE DEFENSES LIE

To convict under HS § 11366, the prosecution must prove both elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. You maintained the place — you had control, authority, or possession over it; not just visiting
2. The specific purpose was selling, giving away, or using controlled substances — not merely incidental activity at a location maintained for legitimate reasons

Key Defense Targets:

• Purpose element — the location was maintained for legitimate reasons (living, work, transportation); any drug activity was incidental
• Maintaining element — you did not control or maintain the space; you were a visitor, guest, or co-occupant without primary control
• Knowledge — you did not know about the drug activity
• Suppression — unconstitutional search excludes all evidence supporting both elements

INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE EXPLANATIONS — HOW EACH DEFENSE WORKS

Defense One: Suppression — Residential Searches and the Highest Fourth Amendment Protection

In most HS § 11366 cases, the evidence supporting both the maintaining element and the purpose element — the controlled substances, the drug paraphernalia, the cash, the scales, the communications devices — was discovered during a search of the location. If that search was unconstitutional, all evidence produced by it is suppressed under the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. Without the physical evidence, the prosecution has no case — and dismissal follows immediately.

Residential searches receive the highest level of Fourth Amendment protection — the warrant requirement for home searches is the most demanding standard in Fourth Amendment law. The specific suppression grounds most frequently available in HS § 11366 cases include:

Franks challenges: Search warrants in HS § 11366 cases are typically obtained based on confidential informant information about alleged drug activity at the location. Under Franks v. Delaware, a warrant affidavit that contained deliberate falsehoods or statements made with reckless disregard for the truth is challenged at a Franks hearing — and if the false or reckless statements are removed and the remaining facts do not establish probable cause, the warrant is invalid and all evidence seized under it is suppressed. In HS § 11366 cases where the warrant was based on informant observations of alleged drug activity, the informant's reliability, the accuracy of the specific observations attributed to them, and any material omissions from the affidavit are examined and challenged.

Consent scope challenges: Where the prosecution claims the defendant or another occupant consented to the search, consent is challenged on voluntariness grounds — coerced consent, consent obtained from a person who was already unlawfully detained, and consent extracted through implied or express threats does not validate the search. The scope of any consent also matters specifically in HS § 11366 cases: consent to enter a location does not automatically authorize search of every room, every container, and every area of the premises. Evidence found in areas or containers beyond the scope of whatever consent was given is suppressed even where the initial consent was valid. And consent from a co-occupant whose authority to consent to the entire shared premises is contested — particularly in multi-occupant residences where different occupants have different areas of control — is challenged on authority grounds.

Warrantless entry and exigent circumstances: Where law enforcement entered the location without a warrant, the claimed exigency — imminent destruction of evidence, threat to life, hot pursuit — is examined against the specific facts known to the officer at the time of entry. Law enforcement cannot manufacture their own exigency, and entries based on pretextual or legally insufficient exigencies are suppressed.

Dashcam footage, body camera footage, and any other objective video evidence of the search circumstances are identified and preservation demands issued immediately upon retention — before the 30 to 90 day retention window closes permanently.

Defense Two: The Purpose Element Challenge — The Legitimate Residence Standard

The purpose element is the most important and most frequently successful defense in HS § 11366 cases. The prosecution must prove the defendant's purpose in maintaining the location was specifically for drug sales or drug use — not merely that drug activity occurred there, not merely that the defendant knew drug activity occurred there, but that the reason the defendant maintained the space was drug-related activity.

The legitimate residence standard provides the most powerful framework for this challenge. A defendant who maintained a residence as their home — for the purpose of living, sleeping, cooking, receiving mail, and conducting the ordinary activities of residential life — maintained it for legitimate residential purposes. Drug activity that occurred at that residence — whether by the defendant, by co-occupants, or by visitors — does not convert the residence into a location maintained for the purpose of drug activity unless the prosecution can prove that drug activity was the reason the defendant maintained the space. The evidence of the location's legitimate uses — lease agreements, utility accounts, personal belongings, regular residential activity, employment records tying the defendant to the address, and the overall character and proportion of legitimate versus drug-related use — is developed and presented to establish that the prosecution cannot prove the location was maintained for the purpose of drug activity.

The same standard applies to vehicles maintained for transportation, businesses maintained for legitimate commercial activity, and any other location maintained for a legitimate purpose. The prosecution must prove the drug activity was the purpose — not an incidental occurrence — and in many cases that distinction is precisely the gap between what the prosecution has and what it needs.

Defense Three: The Maintaining Element Challenge — Visitor vs. Controller

HS § 11366 requires proof that the defendant "maintained" the location — that they had some degree of control, authority, or possession over it, not merely that they were present. The maintaining element is challenged through the specific evidence of the defendant's relationship to the location: did they have a lease, pay rent, have their name on the account, keep their belongings there, have their own key, or otherwise exercise the kind of control that constitutes maintenance? Or were they a visitor, a guest, an occasional presence with no authority over the space?

The visitor versus controller distinction is the most important factual question in the maintaining element challenge. A defendant who was present at a location when police arrived — but who did not live there, did not pay for it, did not have regular and exclusive access, and whose relationship to the space was as a visitor or social guest — did not "maintain" the location within the meaning of HS § 11366. The specific facts of how the defendant came to be at the location, how frequently they were present, what authority they exercised over the space, and what the nature of their relationship to the person who did control the location was are all developed and presented.

In multi-occupancy cases — where several people shared or had access to the location — the defendant's specific level of control is examined against the control exercised by others. A defendant who shared equal or lesser control with co-occupants who were responsible for the drug activity did not necessarily "maintain" the location in the way the statute requires, and the specific evidence of relative control is developed and presented.

Defense Four: Knowledge Challenge

Where the prosecution's theory is that the defendant maintained the location for the purpose of drug activity by others — allowing others to sell or use drugs there — the defendant's knowledge of that drug activity is a required element. A defendant who genuinely did not know that drug sales or use was occurring at their location did not maintain it "for the purpose of" that activity. The knowledge defense is developed through evidence of the defendant's specific awareness, the steps they took when they became aware of any drug activity, and any evidence consistent with genuine ignorance of what others were doing at the location.

Defense Five: Wobbler Reduction — Felony to Misdemeanor

Because HS § 11366 is a wobbler, the prosecution has discretion to charge it as either a felony or a misdemeanor. Where the prosecution has charged a felony, the specific facts — the nature of the alleged drug activity, the quantity involved, the defendant's prior record, the circumstances of the alleged maintenance — are analyzed to determine whether reduction to a misdemeanor is achievable through negotiation. The wobbler reduction is pursued as both a criminal defense goal and an immigration protection priority, because the felony versus misdemeanor distinction can significantly affect the immigration classification of the conviction for non-U.S. citizen defendants.

Defense Six: Diversion

While PC 1000 DEJ is not available for HS § 11366, other diversion pathways are assessed and pursued in every case. PC § 1001.95 misdemeanor diversion is available for misdemeanor HS § 11366 charges in the court's discretion — the court can grant diversion over the prosecution's objection, and the motion is pursued in every qualifying misdemeanor case. Drug court programs in many California counties accept HS § 11366 defendants. Mental health diversion under PC § 1001.36 is available where a qualifying mental health condition contributed to the charged conduct. Military diversion under PC § 1001.80 is available for qualifying veterans.

Defense Seven: Knowledge of Nature of the Substance

Even where the defendant knew a substance was present at the location, HS § 11366 requires proof that the defendant knew the substance was a controlled substance. A defendant who was unaware that the substance was an illegal controlled substance — as opposed to a legal medication, supplement, or other legal substance — did not have the required knowledge of nature. This defense is developed through the specific circumstances of the substance's presence and the defendant's awareness of its character.

Defense Eight: Laboratory Analysis Challenge

The prosecution must prove through formal laboratory analysis that the substance found at the location was in fact a controlled substance. Chain of custody violations, methodology errors, and contamination challenges apply in HS § 11366 cases just as in simple possession cases. Where the laboratory analysis is challenged successfully, the foundation of the charge is directly undermined.

HS § 11366 AND IMMIGRATION — CRITICAL FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS

HS § 11366 convictions carry immigration consequences that vary depending on the specific conduct alleged, the specific charge, and the specific plea — and the immigration analysis must be conducted from the very first consultation before any plea is entered.

Federal Immigration Consequences of HS § 11366

An HS § 11366 conviction can constitute:

• A controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) — triggering deportability for non-U.S. citizens convicted after admission
• Where sales activity is alleged, 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

The Wobbler Immigration Analysis

For non-U.S. citizens, the wobbler nature of HS § 11366 creates a critical immigration consideration. A felony HS § 11366 conviction and a misdemeanor HS § 11366 conviction can carry different immigration consequences depending on the specific conduct alleged and the specific immigration classification analysis. Whether the charge is resolved as a felony or misdemeanor — and precisely what conduct the plea admits — affects whether the conviction triggers deportability as a controlled substance offense, approaches aggravated felony status, or falls outside the most serious immigration consequence categories. Charge reduction to a misdemeanor is pursued as an explicit immigration priority in every HS § 11366 case involving a non-U.S. citizen defendant — not just as a criminal defense goal.

What Non-U.S. Citizens Must Do Before Any Plea:

• The immigration consequences of the specific HS § 11366 charge — including whether the specific conduct alleged and the specific plea 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 another immigration-consequential conviction — must be analyzed before any plea is entered
• Suppression is the most immigration-protective outcome — a suppression dismissal produces no conviction and no plea, eliminating all immigration consequences from the charge entirely and simultaneously
• Charge reduction to misdemeanor — combined with analysis of the specific immigration classification of the reduced conviction compared to the felony — must be pursued as an explicit immigration priority where suppression is not achievable, because the immigration consequences of the felony and misdemeanor versions of this charge can differ significantly
• No plea to any HS § 11366 charge should be entered without a full understanding of the immigration consequences of the specific plea — including what specific conduct the plea admits and how that conduct is classified under federal immigration law — and a clear assessment of whether 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 HS § 11366 case.

HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS HS § 11366 CASES

David Chesley personally handles every case — rapidly preserving evidence for suppression, challenging both statutory elements, pursuing wobbler reduction, and coordinating immigration protection. 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:

Suppression analysis — immediate evidence preservation

Every search examined for constitutional defects with specific attention to residential search warrant requirements. Franks vulnerability in affidavit assessed; consent scope analyzed; dashcam and body camera preservation demands issued immediately.

Purpose element analysis

Evidence of the location's legitimate uses developed from the first consultation; prosecution's purpose theory examined against the specific facts of how the space was actually used.

Maintaining element analysis

Defendant's specific relationship to the location — lease, presence frequency, access control, co-occupant relationships — examined to determine whether the maintaining element can be genuinely challenged.

Wobbler reduction

Specific facts, severity of alleged drug activity, and prior record analyzed to determine whether felony-to-misdemeanor reduction is achievable; pursued aggressively as criminal defense goal and immigration protection priority.

Diversion assessment

Every available diversion pathway — PC § 1001.95, drug court, mental health diversion, military diversion — assessed and pursued in every qualifying case.

Immigration analysis from the first consultation

Immigration consequences of every available resolution analyzed before any plea is entered; specific wobbler immigration analysis conducted for every non-U.S. citizen defendant.

Free, confidential case review — available 24/7, no obligation. 📞 (800) 755-5174 | 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com

YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.

The prosecution must prove both the maintaining element and the purpose element beyond a reasonable doubt. Common resolutions:

• All evidence suppressed — residential search warrant based on false informant information; Franks challenge succeeded; warrant invalidated; all evidence suppressed; charge dismissed
• Purpose element defeated — location established as primary legitimate residence; drug activity found incidental; charge dismissed
• Maintaining element not established — defendant was a visitor without control over the space; maintaining element not proven; charge dismissed
• Knowledge element defeated — drug activity was co-occupant's; defendant's genuine lack of awareness established; charge dismissed
• Consent search suppressed — consent obtained under coercive circumstances; consent found involuntary; all evidence excluded; charge dismissed
• Felony reduced to misdemeanor — specific facts insufficient for felony charging; wobbler reduced; state prison and most serious consequences eliminated
• PC § 1001.95 diversion granted — misdemeanor HS § 11366; court granted diversion; program completed; charge dismissed; no conviction recorded
• Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen; suppression produced dismissal without plea; all immigration consequences avoided

WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY

Direct, personal attention — statewide, 24/7

David Chesley personally handles HS § 11366 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 residential search evidence is overwritten quickly, and the wobbler charging decision is most effectively challenged in the early stages of the case.

Straight talk, always

HS § 11366 cases range from situations where the residential search was clearly unconstitutional and suppression eliminates the case — to situations where the purpose element is genuinely contestable because the location was used predominantly for legitimate purposes — to situations where the focus must shift to wobbler reduction, diversion, and immigration protection. You deserve honest counsel about which situation you are actually in. No false promises. No sugarcoating.

Every defense identified and pursued simultaneously

Suppression, purpose challenge, maintaining challenge, knowledge challenge, wobbler reduction, and diversion are all assessed simultaneously — because the most powerful defense depends on the specific facts and every available pathway must be identified before the prosecution's narrative is locked in.

Flexible payment plans

The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone charged with HS § 11366 goes without experienced legal representation.

Representative Results:

• HS § 11366 dismissed — search warrant based on false informant information; Franks challenge filed; Franks hearing held; material inaccuracies in affidavit established; warrant invalidated; all evidence suppressed; charge dismissed
• Purpose element defeated — prosecution alleged apartment was maintained for drug sales; evidence established apartment was defendant's primary residence with active legitimate residential use; drug activity found to be incidental to residential purpose; charge dismissed before trial
• Maintaining element not established — defendant present at location when searched; evidence established defendant was a regular visitor without lease, regular access, or control over the space; maintaining element not proven; charge dismissed
• Knowledge element defeated — drug activity at location found to be the activity of co-occupant without defendant's knowledge; specific evidence of defendant's genuine lack of awareness presented; HS § 11366 charge dismissed
• Consent search found involuntary — defendant's consent to search obtained under coercive circumstances with multiple officers present; consent found not to be genuinely voluntary; all evidence excluded; charge dismissed
• Felony HS § 11366 reduced to misdemeanor — specific facts of alleged drug activity found insufficient to support felony charging; wobbler reduced through negotiation; state prison exposure eliminated; immigration consequences significantly reduced for non-U.S. citizen defendant
• PC § 1001.95 misdemeanor diversion granted — misdemeanor HS § 11366 charge; PC § 1001.95 diversion motion filed; court granted diversion over prosecution objection; program completed; charge dismissed; no conviction recorded
• Immigration-safe resolution — non-U.S. citizen defendant facing controlled substance deportability and potential aggravated felony exposure under HS § 11366; suppression motion filed; search found unconstitutional; charge dismissed without any plea; all immigration consequences eliminated

Client Feedback:

"The police said my apartment was a drug house. David challenged the warrant, showed the informant information was inaccurate, got everything suppressed, and the charge was dismissed. I didn't know a warrant could be thrown out like that." — Anonymous former client

"The prosecution claimed I maintained my home for drug sales because drugs were found there. David showed it was my legitimate home — I lived there, paid rent, had my life there. The purpose element failed and the case was dismissed." — Anonymous former client

"I was at a friend's place when it was searched. I didn't live there and had no control over it. David showed I was a visitor, not someone who maintained the space. The maintaining element wasn't established and the charge was dismissed." — Anonymous former client

"As a non-citizen, the HS § 11366 felony charge would have triggered deportation. David pursued suppression and the search was found unconstitutional. Charge dismissed without any plea. My immigration status is protected." — Anonymous former client

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What does the prosecution have to prove under HS § 11366?

Two independent elements, both beyond a reasonable doubt: first, that you maintained the location — that you had some degree of control, authority, or possession over it, not merely that you were present; and second, that the specific purpose for maintaining the location was drug sales, giving away, or use — not merely that drugs were found there or that drug activity occurred on some occasions. The prosecution cannot prove HS § 11366 by establishing only that drugs were present at a location associated with you. Both elements must be established independently and specifically, and both are challengeable.

Is HS § 11366 a misdemeanor or a felony?

It is a wobbler — the prosecution has discretion to charge it as either a misdemeanor or a felony. As a misdemeanor, it carries up to 1 year in county jail. As a felony, it carries 16 months, 2, or 3 years in state prison. The charging decision can be challenged, and reduction from felony to misdemeanor is pursued in every case where the specific facts support it. For non-U.S. citizen defendants, the felony versus misdemeanor distinction affects the immigration classification of the conviction and is analyzed as an immigration priority from the first consultation.

Can the search of my home be challenged?

Yes — residential searches have the highest Fourth Amendment protections. Law enforcement must have a valid warrant or a specifically satisfied exception before entering and searching a home. Invalid warrants based on false or inaccurate informant information are challenged under Franks v. Delaware. Consent searches are challenged on voluntariness grounds. Coerced consent, consent from an unlawfully detained person, and searches exceeding the scope of any consent given are all grounds for suppression. Every search in every HS § 11366 case is examined for constitutional defects from the first consultation — and suppression of the physical evidence typically produces immediate dismissal.

What if the drugs belonged to someone else at the location?

Knowledge and purpose are both key. If you did not know drug activity was occurring at the location — because it was the activity of a co-occupant, a visitor, or another person without your awareness — you did not maintain the location "for the purpose of" that activity. The knowledge element is challenged through evidence of your specific awareness, the activities of others at the location, and all available facts consistent with genuine ignorance of what others were doing.

Is diversion available for HS § 11366?

PC 1000 DEJ is not available for HS § 11366. However, PC § 1001.95 misdemeanor diversion is available for misdemeanor HS § 11366 charges — the court can grant diversion even over the prosecution's objection. Drug court, mental health diversion under PC § 1001.36, and military diversion under PC § 1001.80 may also be available depending on the defendant and the jurisdiction. Every available pathway is assessed in every case.

What are the immigration consequences?

An HS § 11366 conviction can constitute a controlled substance offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) triggering deportability. Where sales activity is alleged, the conviction may approach aggravated felony status under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) — mandatory deportation with almost no relief. The felony versus misdemeanor distinction affects the immigration analysis. Suppression that produces dismissal without any plea is the most immigration-protective outcome. Immigration analysis must begin before any plea is entered.

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 HS § 11366 goes without experienced legal representation. Call to discuss options during your free consultation.

📞 (800) 755-5174 📧 calllog@chesleylawyers.com 🌐 www.chesleylawyers.com

FREE CONSULTATION — CALL NOW — 24/7

HS § 11366 cases turn on fast suppression analysis and challenges to the purpose and maintaining elements — and the evidence that decides these cases is the most time-sensitive evidence in any drug prosecution. Every day without experienced defense counsel is a day the dashcam footage, body camera footage, and surveillance footage that could establish the unconstitutional search — and suppress all the physical evidence on which both the maintaining element and the purpose element depend — moves closer to being permanently overwritten on the 30 to 90 day retention cycle before a defense attorney has identified the constitutional violation and issued the preservation demand that protects it. Every day the prosecution's purpose element characterization develops unchallenged is a day the narrative that the defendant's home, vehicle, or location was maintained for drug activity rather than for legitimate purposes solidifies without a defense attorney developing the evidence of legitimate use — the lease, the employment records, the proportion of legitimate activity — that defeats the purpose element and produces dismissal before the prosecution's theory is locked into the charging documents and preliminary hearing testimony. Every day a non-U.S. citizen defendant faces a felony HS § 11366 charge without immigration-specific analysis of the controlled substance deportability ground and the potential aggravated felony classification is a day the most consequential immigration decision in their case — whether to accept a plea that could trigger mandatory deportation — moves closer to being made without the wobbler reduction and suppression strategy that could eliminate those consequences before a plea is entered that cannot be undone. Every day the wobbler charging decision goes unchallenged in a case where the specific facts support a misdemeanor rather than a felony is a day the state prison exposure, the permanent felony record, and the most serious immigration and licensing consequences remain in place without the negotiation that, pursued early, could have eliminated them.

Don't assume the charge sticks just because drugs were found. Don't assume the purpose element is proven. Don't assume the search was valid. And don't wait. If you have been charged with maintaining a place for drug sales or use under HS § 11366 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 of your specific facts — including suppression opportunities, purpose and maintaining element challenges, immigration risks, and every available diversion pathway.

Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone charged with HS § 11366 goes without the experienced defense this charge demands.

David Chesley handles HS § 11366 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

"HS § 11366 requires proof that you maintained the location and that the specific purpose was drug-related activity. The mere presence of drugs does not prove either element. My commitment is challenging both elements simultaneously — through suppression, purpose and maintaining challenges, wobbler reduction, and every available diversion pathway — from the first day." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney