Drug trafficking cases under Health and Safety Code 11352 are some of the most aggressively prosecuted in San Bernardino County. The charge covers the transportation or sale of a controlled substance and carries three to nine years in state prison for a first offense. That exposure goes higher when the alleged trafficking involved certain substances, large quantities, or transportation across county lines. Federal charges are a real possibility when federal agencies were part of the investigation.
Our criminal defense work covers drug charges in San Bernardino across the full range, from simple possession cases to transportation and sales allegations. The defense approach for an HS 11352 charge is different from a possession defense in some fundamental ways. Understanding exactly what the prosecution has to prove, and where that proof breaks down, is where the work starts.
What Makes HS 11352 Different From Simple Possession
Simple possession under HS 11350 is personal use. Possession for sale under HS 11351 requires evidence of intent to distribute. Transportation under HS 11352 adds the element of movement: transporting a controlled substance for the purpose of sale rather than personal use. The distinction between these three drug charges is the intent and purpose behind what the defendant was doing with the drugs.
Prosecutors rely heavily on circumstantial evidence to establish the sales or transportation element. Drug quantities larger than typical personal use amounts, packaging divided into individual doses, digital scales, unexplained cash, pay-owe sheets, and text messages with sales-related language are the standard toolkit. None of those factors is conclusive standing alone. A large quantity of a substance does not automatically prove intent to sell. Cash in a vehicle has many possible explanations unrelated to drug transactions. We challenge the inferences the prosecution is asking the jury to draw, one piece of circumstantial evidence at a time.
Fourth Amendment Issues Often Decide the Case
The Fourth Amendment is where most drug trafficking defenses get resolved, one way or another. The vast majority of HS 11352 cases begin with a search: a vehicle stop, a residential warrant, a pat-down following a detention. Search and seizure law in California drug cases determines whether the physical drug evidence can be used at trial. Suppressed drug evidence almost always ends the prosecution's case entirely.
We examine every search in a trafficking case closely. For traffic stops, the question is whether the stop was based on an actual traffic violation or reasonable suspicion, or whether it was a pretextual stop where the officer was looking for something to develop. For residential warrants, we review the supporting affidavit for factual accuracy and whether the scope of the search exceeded what the warrant authorized. For consent searches, we look at whether consent was genuinely voluntary or whether the circumstances, the number of officers, the time of day, the framing of the request, made the defendant feel they had no real option to decline. Suppression is not a minor technical argument in these cases. In our work defending drug cases across San Bernardino, Fontana, Ontario, Rialto, and throughout the county, Fourth Amendment challenges are the most productive area of attack in trafficking cases on a consistent basis.
Challenging the Intent Evidence
Even when physical evidence survives suppression, the prosecution still has to prove intent to sell or transport the drugs. That is a specific intent element requiring proof beyond the drugs themselves. We challenge every piece of circumstantial evidence the prosecution points to as evidence of that intent.
Quantity does not automatically mean sales. People buy certain substances in bulk for personal use, particularly when tolerance has developed. Scales have household uses that have nothing to do with drug transactions. Cash is cash. Text message communications need to be obtained through proper legal procedures, and we review whether the phone data extraction complied with those requirements. For cases that also involve violent crime allegations alongside the trafficking charge, the same critical scrutiny applies to every piece of evidence in the file, not just the drug-related items.
Mental Health Diversion as an Alternative
Not everyone charged with HS 11352 is a commercial drug dealer. Some defendants facing transportation or sales charges have serious substance use disorders or underlying mental health conditions that were directly connected to the conduct charged. For those individuals, mental health diversion under PC 1001.36 may be an alternative to a criminal conviction.
PC 1001.36 allows diversion when a defendant has a qualifying mental health diagnosis listed in the DSM-5, the mental health condition played a significant role in the offense, and the defendant does not pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. Certain offenses are excluded from the diversion program, so HS 11352 cases need to be evaluated individually. For defendants who qualify, completing the diversion program results in a dismissal rather than a conviction. We assess diversion eligibility in every drug case where the client's history suggests it may apply.
How We Approach These Cases in San Bernardino County
Tammy Higgins spent 16 years as a San Bernardino County public defender before opening this firm. She handled drug cases in the same courts and worked alongside the same prosecutors she faces in private practice. She has also tried more than 100 jury trials, including complex felony cases where the entire defense turned on a suppression motion that had to hold up through trial. Drug trafficking defenses that require challenging the investigation from the initial stop through every piece of evidence collected are cases we take all the way.
For people already convicted of drug trafficking offenses, post-conviction options are worth reviewing. Expungement under PC 1203.4 applies to trafficking convictions where the sentence was probation rather than prison. For older sentences that are no longer proportional under current California drug sentencing standards, resentencing under AB 600 may provide a path to a reduced term. California drug sentencing has shifted substantially over the past decade, and sentences imposed under old mandatory frameworks may now be eligible for reconsideration. Results vary by case. Past outcomes do not guarantee future results.
Related Topics:
