Indiana Drug Dealing Criminal Defense Lawyer

317-695-7700

Indiana Criminal Defense Attorney for Drug Dealing Jeff Cardella

Indiana Drug Dealing Laws

Dealing in Indiana refers to the unlawful sale, delivery, or distribution of controlled substances. Penalties in State Court can be minimal but can reach over 30 years in prison for enhanced felonies (and can be even higher in Federal Court). When people hear the phrase “dealing” they often think of selling an illegal substance for a profit but it is important to remember that distribution without a profit also qualifies as dealing under Indiana law.  For example, if you go to a music concert and pull out a joint and pass it around to friends, this would meet the legal definition of dealing even though you were not making any financial profit. The most common types of dealing cases are:

• Dealing in Marijuana, Hash Oil, Hashish, or Salvia (IC 35-48-4-10) This statute covers marijuana and salvia but also includes concentrates like hash oil and hashish.
• Dealing in Cocaine or a Narcotic Drug (IC 35-48-4-1) This statute covers cocaine (powder and crack) as well as some narcotics like heroin, fentanyl and hydrocodone.
• Dealing in Methamphetamine (IC 35-48-4-1.1) Penalties for dealing or manufacturing methamphetamines can often be more sever due to the dangers involved in making meth. 
• Dealing in a Schedule I, II, or III Controlled Substance or Controlled Substance Analog (IC 35-48-4-2)  This statute  includes LSD, psilocybin, amphetamines, anabolic steroids and many drugs that are not specifically covered elsewhere.
• Dealing in a Schedule IV Controlled Substance or Controlled Substance Analog (IC 35-48-4-3) This section includes benzodiazepines, Xanax and some sedatives.
• Dealing in a Schedule V Controlled Substance or Controlled Substance Analog (IC 35-48-4-4) This covers substances that technically require a prescription but have a lower potential for abuse, such as low-dose codeine cough syrups.
• Unlawful Delivery, Manufacture, Distribution, or Possession of a Substance Represented to Be a Controlled Substance (IC 35-48-4-4.6) This statute prohibits dealing in lookalike substances that mimic control drugs, such as fake pills.
• Dealing in a Counterfeit Substance (IC 35-48-4-5) This law prohibits the selling of substances that are themselves legal but are being represented as an illegal substance (for example: selling oregano but claiming it is marijuana).
• Dealing in a Controlled Substance by a Practitioner (IC 35-48-4-1.5) This statute covers licensed professionals (such as doctors and pharmacists) and prohibits unlawfully prescribing or distributing controlled substances outside of a legitimate medical practice.

Penalties for dealing in different types of substances vary.  I have handled a wide range of dealing cases (everything from misdemeanor state court cases involving the sale of a dime bag of marijuana to interstate Federal drug trafficking conspiracy cases involving pounds of methamphetamine) but one of the most common questions that arises in dealing cases is whether or not the defendant had intent to deliver.  

Intent to Deliver

Dealing cases often turn on whether or not the defendant had intent to deliver. The quantity of the drug is one element that Courts look at. Sometimes the amount alone can be proof of intent to deliver. For example, if someone is caught trying to board an airplane with 12 pounds of heroin, it would be very difficult to argue that they were simply bringing the heroin with for personal use during a vacation. However, there are many situations where the State can prove dealing even when the amount is very small. If someone is caught in a sting operation selling a dime bag of marijuana to an undercover officer, it won’t matter that the amount of contraband was small. 

However, there are many cases that fall into a gray area where law enforcement might suspect dealing, but it might be difficult to prove. I recently handled a case that 

I recently handled a case in Indianapolis that fell into this gray area. My client was caught with about an ounce of marijuana, but it was in 3 separate baggies. My client had a few thousand dollars in small bills, a scale, and there were ziplock bags in the back seat of the car. At first glance, this case can easily look like dealing.  However, our legal system requires proof beyond reasonable doubt and not mere suspicion. Lets break this down further:

• The marijuana was in 3 different bags, which raises some eyebrows.  However, my client might have simply bought the marijuana in 3 separate bags, perhaps even on 3 separate occasions. If an individual has a 12 back of beer, a bottle of vodka, and a bottle of wine, it doesn’t mean that they have any intent to sell the alcohol.  Similarly, having 3 different bags of marijuana might look suspicious but really proves very little.
• The scale also raises suspicions but really proves very little. A drug user might have a scale so that he can measure the weight of what he is buying to make sure he is not getting cheated. So the scale did very little for the prosecution’s case.
• The amount of marijauna (around an ounce) was not insignificant but it is not outside the realm of personal use, especially for someone who uses on a daily basis or merely wants to stockpile to be on the safe side.  Sometimes people merely prefer to buy a large quantity of something so that they don’t have to worry about running out later.  For example, people routinely buy 24 packs of paper towel rolls (an amount that could last a normal person well over a year) without any intent to later redistribute or sell the paper towels. Similarly, it is not rare for someone to buy several boxes of wine or get a keg of beer merely for personal use. So the amount of marijuana in this case is not particularly suspect. Even a large amount of marijuana would not necessarily be dispositive: I once represented an individual who had gone to Michigan to buy a large quantity of THC gummies (worth several thousand dollars) and the State was unable to prove dealing because my client asserted that he was simply buying a large amount because he knew it was illegal to have the gummies and it was  inconvenient to travel to Michigan, so he had decided to purchase a large amount in order to reduce the number of trips and his chances of getting caught. 
• Having several thousand dollars in cash also means very little.  I once was doing a Court Trial where my client had been accused of dealing and the Judge said to me: “Mr. Cardella, most people don’t walk around with several thousand dollars in cash.” I replied to her “Having a few thousand dollars in cash isnt all that rare Judge.” I then reached into my briefcase and pulled out an envelope with around $5000 in cash (small unmarked bills) and laid laid the cash out on the defense table.  This was unscripted, I had just been paid by a client and had not yet gone to the bank. After I put the cash on the defense table I said, “I have a few thousand dollars in cash Judge, do you think that makes me a drug dealer?” The Judge sighed and found my client not guilty. The reality is that in today’s age, having several thousand dollars is simply not that unusual. Additionally, someone might merely have cash to buy drugs (not necessarily to sell them). Also, some individuals do not have bank accounts and these individuals often are more likely to carry cash in large amounts.
• The ziplock baggies also look suspicious but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to have plastic bags. They were also in the back seat of the vehicle and there was no actual evidence that the bags belonged to my client or that he even knew they were there.

In this situation, the Prosecution’s case initially looked strong, but on closer analysis, it was actually quite weak. This particular case never actually went to trial because it was thrown out after we won a suppression hearing, but I do think my client would have had a very strong chance of winning the case at a jury trial.

In a dealing case, the State must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant knowingly or intentionally possessed the substance and intended to distribute it. Direct evidence of intent (an explicit admission) are more difficult to fight.  However, circumstantial cases can actually be difficult for the State to prove. The Judge or Jury will weigh all the evidence in totality, but some factors that are commonly looked at are as follows:

• Weight: Larger amounts can infer intent, as they can exceed plausible personal use. Extremely large quantities (e.g., hundreds of grams or pounds) can strongly support intent even with minimal additional evidence. Smaller amounts generally obviously lean towards the defense.
• Packaging: Division into individual, sale-ready units (e.g., small baggies or packets) can suggest preparation for distribution. Conversely, bulk undivided storage can indicate personal use.
• Distribution-Related Paraphernalia: Items such as digital scales (particularly with residue), bulk empty baggies, cutting agents, ledgers, multiple cell phones, or firearms can point toward sales. However, buyers may carry a gun for personal protection or have a scale to verify the amount they are buying, so these clues are not always dispositive. Written ledgers recording amounts owed and quantities sold are often harder to explain away. 
• Financial Indicators: Substantial cash, often in small denominations, can imply sales proceeds. However, unexplained income alone does not prove intent, as defendants have no burden to testify or account for where there money came from.
• Surrounding Context: The presence of personal consumption tools (pipes or syringes) may help indicate that the individual was a user (not a dealer). Flight or evasive conduct during arrest demonstrates consciousness of guilt but is not specific to dealing, as it applies equally to personal possession. Other factors (such as have 4 or 5 burner phones) can look suspicious but ultimately proves very little. In many cases the State will need additional evidence (such as text messages specifically discussing drug activity) in order to meet the high burden of proof.

Contact Indiana Criminal Attorney Jeff Cardella for a Free Consultation

If you have questions about Indiana’s Drug Dealing laws, call me for a free consultation to discuss your case.

Phone: 317-695-7700

Email: jeffcardella@cardellalawoffice.com

Address: 350 Massachusetts Ave #357, Indianapolis, IN 46204

I handle cases throughout all of Indiana, including the Federal District Courts and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The main geographic areas that I practice law in are:

• Indianapolis, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Noblesville, Carmel & Fishers, Hamilton County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Danville, Plainfield & Avon, Hendricks County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Franklin & Greenwood, Johnson County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Muncie, Delaware County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Bloomington, Monroe County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Anderson, Madison County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Lebanon & Zionsville, Boone County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Shelbyville, Shelby County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)
• Martinsville, Mooresville & Morgantown, Morgan County, Indiana (for both Criminal Defense and Expungement)