Drug Trafficking Defense Lawyer

Charged with Drug Trafficking in California?

Federal Drug Trafficking: Check the Filed Count, Quantity, Prior Allegations and Evidence Before Assessing Exposure

California criminal defense attorney David Chesley describes firm-reported work on federal section 841 and 846 cases and California sections 11352 and 11379. The charged statute, drug type, quantity, prior allegations and evidence decide the legal questions; a trafficking label alone does not establish a mandatory minimum or permanent immigration result. Counsel can examine suppression, disputed quantity, agreement evidence and a proposed resolution. A noncitizen also needs individual immigration review. Read more drug topics or request a consultation through the firm.

IMMEDIATE STEPS IF CHARGED WITH DRUG TRAFFICKING:

• Do not make any statements to federal agents (DEA, FBI, HSI), state law enforcement, or prosecutors without counsel — statements about your role, knowledge, quantity, or co-conspirators are the prosecution's strongest evidence and lock in admissions that cannot be undone
• Do not contact co-defendants, alleged buyers, or witnesses — an actual no-contact order, witness coaching, threats, evidence destruction or obstructive communications can create separate exposure. Ask counsel before any contact about the case
• Preserve all documentation — communications, financial records, alibis, and any evidence contradicting the prosecution's characterization of your role and conduct
• Contact experienced counsel immediately — trafficking cases involve months or years of wiretaps, surveillance, and informants; early investigation is critical for suppression motions, quantity challenges, and cooperation assessment

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

THE STAKES ARE REAL — TRAFFICKING IS DIFFERENT FROM SIMPLE SALE

A federal section 841 or 846 count and a California sale or transportation count can arise from very different conduct. Neither label by itself proves a commercial quantity or an automatic mandatory minimum. Federal drug type, quantity and qualifying prior allegations control the applicable statutory range; California charges have their own elements and sentencing provisions. Ask for the complaint, laboratory records, alleged transactions and the precise subsection before assuming a particular term.

Common Penalties:

• Federal (21 U.S.C. § 841): Some drug-type and quantity tiers carry five- or ten-year minimums. For the principal higher tiers, one qualifying final serious drug felony or serious violent felony can raise the minimum to 15 years; two qualifying priors can raise it to 25 years. An ordinary prior felony drug conviction does not automatically double every minimum. Review the charged tier, prior-notice procedure and current statute.
• California (HS §§ 11352/11379): Sale, furnishing and transportation for sale follow charge-specific ranges; transportation between noncontiguous counties and any separately alleged enhancement require their own proof. A federal five- or ten-year threshold is not automatically imported into a California case. See the separate location-related allegation if one was filed.
• Federal conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 846): The statutory penalty follows the offense that was the object of the agreement, but the government must prove a knowing agreement and this person's participation. Knowing a participant or having incidental contact is not itself a conspiracy.

Additional Consequences:

• Record and sentencing: A conviction may affect background reporting and federal sentencing, subject to the actual judgment and record-relief rules. A California strikes discussion is separate from federal career-offender criteria; neither follows merely from the charge label.
• Asset forfeiture — cash, vehicles, real property, and financial accounts
• Professional licensing: Reporting, discipline and continued eligibility depend on the license, board rule, final disposition and conduct; revocation is not automatic for every professional.
• Immigration: A trafficking conviction may be an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) and can have severe removal and relief consequences. Classification, record, status, plea and available protection require individual immigration review; do not infer a universal outcome from the allegation.

California's 2024 Proposition 36 created a distinct treatment-mandated felony for specified hard drugs and priors; it does not rewrite federal section 841. Federal mandatory-minimum rules apply only when their statutory predicates are met, and section 3553(f) or a government motion under section 3553(e) can affect a qualifying minimum. Compare the actual state or federal count. Read more about hard-drug possession separately.

Federal Mandatory Minimum Thresholds:

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

WHAT THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE — AND WHERE THE DEFENSES LIE

Federal Drug Trafficking (21 U.S.C. § 841): Knowing or intentional manufacture, distribution, or possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. Key contestable elements: knowledge, intent, and quantity — which triggers mandatory minimums.

Federal Conspiracy (21 U.S.C. § 846): Agreement to traffic drugs plus the defendant's knowing and voluntary participation in that agreement. Mere association is not enough — specific knowing participation and specific intent to further the trafficking objective must be proven as to each individual defendant.

California Sale/Transportation (HS § 11352/11379): Specific act of sale, transportation for sale, or furnishing, plus knowledge of the substance's presence and nature.

Key Defenses at a Glance:

• Suppression of evidence: Wiretaps (Title III violations), warrants (Franks challenges), GPS/cell data (Carpenter/Jones), unlawful searches
• Quantity challenge: Test the lab results, witness accounts, mixture rules and alleged transactions against the charged federal tier. A lower proved quantity can change a minimum only when no other applicable allegation sustains it.
• Conspiracy element challenge: Lack of knowing participation or specific intent — association distinguished from agreement
• Federal entrapment: Government inducement of conduct the defendant was not predisposed to commit
• Informant reliability: Expose motives, inconsistencies, prior unreliability, and benefits given to cooperators
• Safety valve / substantial assistance: Section 3553(f) has five current criteria. A government section 3553(e) motion can authorize a sentence below a statutory minimum for substantial assistance; a § 5K1.1 motion alone addresses the guidelines range.
• Charge reduction: A supported change to a different charge may alter criminal or immigration analysis, but no new label alone guarantees a safe outcome; simple possession can carry separate controlled-substance consequences.

INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE EXPLANATIONS — HOW EACH DEFENSE WORKS

Defense One: Suppression of Evidence — Wiretaps, Warrants, GPS, and Cell Data

Trafficking investigations may involve wiretaps, tracking, controlled buys and warrants. Counsel should identify the particular collection authority, affected evidence and applicable remedy. An unlawful step does not automatically suppress every later item: independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation, standing and good-faith rules may limit the result. Compare what admissible evidence would remain after a ruling.

Wiretaps under Title III: A federal application addresses probable cause, necessity, minimization and judicial authorization. Necessity does not require exhausting every conventional method; the application must explain why ordinary methods have failed, appear unlikely to work or are too dangerous. A supported violation can justify suppression of intercepted communications and certain derived evidence under the statute, subject to the actual ground and court ruling. Obtain the applications, extensions, reports and minimization records; do not presume every subsequent exhibit or the whole case disappears.

GPS tracking and cell site location data: Following United States v. Jones and Carpenter v. United States, the government's use of GPS tracking devices and cell site location information requires a warrant in most circumstances. Warrantless GPS tracking or warrantless collection of cell site location data — which reveals the defendant's movements over extended periods — is subject to suppression. In trafficking cases where the government's location evidence was gathered without a warrant or under a deficient warrant, the suppression motion is filed immediately.

Franks challenges: An affidavit can be challenged on a substantial preliminary showing of a knowingly or recklessly false material statement or omission. If the hearing establishes the required defect and corrected affidavit cannot support probable cause, the warrant may be invalid. The remedy still depends on the items, causal connection and applicable exceptions; it is not automatic suppression of every exhibit.

Defense Two: Quantity Challenge — Below Mandatory Minimum Thresholds

The drug quantity that triggers mandatory minimums is determined by laboratory analysis, cooperating witness testimony, and law enforcement estimates — and each of those determination methods has specific vulnerabilities. Laboratory analysis is challenged for methodology errors, contamination, and chain of custody violations. Cooperating witness quantity testimony is challenged through cross-examination exposing the witness's specific motive to exaggerate — because cooperating witnesses have every incentive to overstate quantities observed or participated in distributing, since larger quantities produce larger benefits in their own plea agreements. Law enforcement quantity estimates based on surveillance, financial analysis, and extrapolation from seized samples are challenged through independent expert analysis of the estimation methodology.

If a disputed federal quantity falls below a charged section 841(b) tier, the applicable minimum may change or cease to apply, depending on the final findings and any other charged basis. The sentence does not mechanically change from decades to years. Preserve the lab method, seizure weights, mixture calculations and witness accounts; counsel can compare charged and proved quantities with the actual statute and advisory guideline calculation.

Defense Three: Conspiracy Element Challenge — Association Is Not Agreement

A federal drug-conspiracy allegation under 21 U.S.C. § 846 requires more than an association with someone accused of trafficking. Ask which agreement, knowing participation and conduct the prosecution actually alleges. But conspiracy requires proof of a specific knowing agreement to traffic drugs and the defendant's specific voluntary participation in and intent to further that agreement. Knowing someone who was trafficking, being present at locations where trafficking occurred, communicating with members of a trafficking organization, and performing services for members of the organization without specific knowledge of the trafficking conspiracy are not the same as participating in it.

The conspiracy element is challenged through the specific evidence of what this defendant actually knew, what this defendant actually agreed to, and what this defendant's specific intent actually was — as distinguished from what the prosecution infers from associations and relationships. The distinction between association and participation is the most important legal question in every multi-defendant trafficking conspiracy case — and it is argued aggressively in every case where the prosecution's evidence of the defendant's specific participation is limited to presence, communication, and relationship.

Defense Four: Federal Entrapment

Federal entrapment focuses on government inducement and whether the defendant was predisposed to commit the charged conduct. Supplying an opportunity or using an informant alone does not establish the defense. Compare the first contact, pressure, prior conduct and communications; if the evidence warrants the instruction, the jury decides the issue. Do not promise acquittal merely because agents supplied a drug or introduced participants.

Defense Five: Informant Reliability Challenge

Drug trafficking investigations routinely depend on confidential informants who provided the probable cause for the investigation and who will testify as cooperating witnesses at trial.

These informants have specific, documented motivations to provide favorable information to law enforcement — reduction of their own charges, financial compensation, and personal animosity toward the defendant. The informant's background, prior cooperation history, the specific benefits received, prior instances of unreliable information, and any personal relationship between the informant and the defendant are all developed as impeachment evidence and presented to the jury. In cases where the informant or cooperating witness is the prosecution's primary evidence connecting the defendant to the trafficking quantities alleged, destroying the witness's credibility is the most important trial strategy.

Defense Six: Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance

Section 3553(f) permits a sentence without an otherwise applicable federal drug minimum only when all five conditions are met. Its current criminal-history test requires that the person not have more than four points (excluding one-point offenses), not have a prior three-point offense, and not have a prior two-point violent offense. Failing any one of these three conditions disqualifies the person; this is not the old one-point cap. The remaining conditions address violence or weapons, death or serious injury, organizing or managing, and truthful disclosure by sentencing. Separately, a government 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) motion can authorize a below-minimum sentence for substantial assistance. USSG § 5K1.1 alone permits a below-guidelines departure, not a below-statutory-minimum sentence. Counsel must compare the written motion, prior record and court findings.

Defense Seven: Charge Reduction — From Trafficking to Possession

A reduction from a charged trafficking or possession-for-sale count to simple possession may change criminal exposure, but it is negotiated or litigated, not automatic. Sections 11350 and 11377 are generally misdemeanors with specified exceptions. Current PC 1000 pretrial diversion uses a not-guilty plea and requires statutory eligibility and a court order; the old guilty-plea DEJ description is not current. For a noncitizen, a non-trafficking drug conviction can still trigger a controlled-substance immigration ground. Review the precise proposed statute, substance, admissions and record with immigration counsel before accepting a plea.

Defense Eight: Mitigating Role Reduction

USSG § 3B1.2 permits a mitigating-role adjustment when the evidence supports minor or minimal participation relative to the relevant activity. A courier or lookout is not entitled to the adjustment merely by that job label. Compare decision-making authority, knowledge, benefit and actual conduct with other participants. An adjustment can affect the advisory range; it does not itself remove a statutory minimum.

DRUG TRAFFICKING AND IMMIGRATION — CRITICAL FOR NON-U.S. CITIZENS

Drug trafficking is among the most devastating immigration consequences available in any criminal case — and the immigration analysis must be conducted from the very first consultation before any plea is entered.

Immigration Consequences Depend on the Conviction and Person

A conviction for illicit drug trafficking can be an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B), with severe removal, naturalization and relief limits. A section 846 conspiracy may also fall within the statute's conspiracy clause. The exact offense and conviction record, a person's status and any available protection still matter. Do not describe deportation, reentry, asylum or every other form of relief as automatically decided for all defendants; obtain qualified immigration analysis before a plea.

The Federal Conspiracy Plea and Immigration — A Critical Warning

A federal section 846 conspiracy conviction for an illicit trafficking agreement can carry aggravated-felony consequences under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), including its conspiracy clause. A minor role does not by itself make the conviction immigration-safe. But the exact charge, controlled substance, plea record, person's status and available protection must be assessed by immigration counsel; no website can declare automatic removal or identical consequences in every case.

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

• Analyze each charged statute and proposed plea, including trafficking and conspiracy, against the actual record and immigration status before admitting facts; potential removal and available protection are case-specific.
• Discuss whether a lawful alternative charge or disposition is available and what its own federal immigration consequences would be; a non-aggravated-felony drug conviction can still create a controlled-substance problem.
• Assess evidence challenges, trial options and plea proposals with qualified immigration counsel. Dismissal, acquittal and charge changes can matter differently, and none is a blanket certification of future status.
• Do not enter a trafficking, conspiracy or possession-for-sale plea without individualized analysis of the precise statutory elements, record, admissions and available immigration options.

Immigration analysis for non-U.S. citizens is conducted from the very first consultation in every drug trafficking case.

HOW DAVID CHESLEY DEFENDS DRUG TRAFFICKING CASES

David Chesley personally handles every case — rapidly preserving evidence for suppression, challenging wiretaps and quantities, assessing cooperation and safety valve options, and prioritizing immigration-protective reductions. Southern, Central, and Northern California, every county, every major federal district — available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. No hand-offs. No junior associates.

All defenses pursued simultaneously from day one:

Suppression analysis — every wiretap examined for Title III necessity and minimization compliance; every warrant examined for Franks vulnerabilities; GPS and cell site data examined for Carpenter/Jones compliance; preservation demands for all surveillance authorization and execution records issued immediately.

Quantity challenge — government's quantity calculation examined from the first consultation; laboratory analysis methodology, cooperating witness testimony, and law enforcement estimation methodology all assessed for specific vulnerabilities that could move the calculation below a mandatory minimum threshold.

Conspiracy element challenge — specific evidence connecting this defendant to the conspiracy analyzed; association, presence, and communication distinguished from knowing agreement and specific intent to further trafficking objectives.

Cooperation decision — honest assessment — in multi-defendant cases, the strength of the evidence against this defendant, the value of the information available, the specific benefit offered, and the risks and benefits of cooperation versus trial defense are assessed honestly from the first consultation.

Safety valve eligibility — where the defendant meets or may meet the criteria, safety valve eligibility is pursued from the first day — because it can eliminate the mandatory minimum entirely.

Immigration analysis — aggravated felony consequences of every available charge and every available plea analyzed before any plea is entered; charge reduction away from trafficking offenses pursued as immigration protection priority.

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

YOU HAVE RIGHTS. USE THEM.

The government must prove the offense elements beyond a reasonable doubt. If drug type or quantity raises a statutory minimum, the required fact must be admitted or found under the governing procedure; review the indictment, plea and verdict. The following are firm-reported historical results, not predicted outcomes:

• Wiretap evidence suppressed — Title III necessity or minimization requirements not satisfied; all wiretap-derived evidence excluded; trafficking case collapsed
• Franks challenge succeeded — warrant affidavit contained material falsehoods; warrant invalidated; all evidence suppressed; charges dismissed
• Mandatory minimum avoided through quantity challenge — cooperating witness quantity testimony found overstated; independent expert demonstrated quantity below mandatory minimum threshold; mandatory minimum eliminated
• Conspiracy charge defeated at trial — specific participation and intent not established as to this defendant; association and presence distinguished from knowing participation; acquitted
• Firm-reported safety-valve and assistance outcome: The source describes a sentence below a charged minimum. Current law requires separate analysis of section 3553(f) eligibility or a government section 3553(e) motion for below-minimum assistance; a § 5K1.1 motion alone does not confer that authority.
• Entrapment established — government-created trafficking opportunity through informant supply and distribution network; defendant not independently predisposed to traffic at charged level; acquitted
• Mitigating role reduction obtained — defendant's role established as minimal; USSG § 3B1.2 adjustment applied; guidelines range reduced significantly
• Firm-reported immigration-related charge reduction: The source describes a reduction and favorable personal outcome. A non-trafficking charge still needs its own controlled-substance, aggravated-felony and relief analysis; no new client's status is determined by this example.

WHY CLIENTS CHOOSE DAVID CHESLEY

Direct attention: The firm describes statewide federal and California defense work. Ask who will handle the specific district court, motions and client communications. Early review is useful, but an indictment does not terminate the opportunity to investigate, litigate suppression, challenge quantity or discuss resolution.

Straight talk: A successful wiretap motion can weaken a case, but dismissal depends on the ruling and admissible evidence that remains. Where a minimum is alleged, examine the quantity, prior predicates, section 3553(f), possible government motion and available defenses. No single strategy or resolution follows from the charge alone.

Multi-front defense — every strategy pursued simultaneously

Suppression, quantity challenge, conspiracy element challenge, entrapment, informant attack, and charge reduction are all identified and assessed simultaneously. The cooperation decision is made honestly, with full information. Every available defense is pursued from the first consultation.

Flexible payment plans

The Law Offices of David Chesley offer flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing drug trafficking charges goes without experienced legal representation during the phase when it matters most.

Representative Results:

• Federal trafficking charges dismissed — wiretap evidence suppressed; Title III necessity requirement not satisfied; all interceptions excluded as unlawfully obtained; trafficking case eliminated without wiretap evidence
• Mandatory minimum avoided — government's quantity calculation relied on cooperating witness testimony the defendant's expert demonstrated was significantly overstated; quantity found below 10-year mandatory minimum threshold; sentence imposed at a fraction of the mandatory minimum that would otherwise have applied
• Conspiracy charge defeated at trial — prosecution relied on association and communication evidence; specific knowing participation in drug trafficking agreement not established beyond reasonable doubt; acquitted on conspiracy count
• Firm-reported assistance outcome: The source describes a sentence below a charged ten-year minimum after safety-valve and cooperation work. The judgment and motion would be needed to identify the legal mechanism; under current law § 5K1.1 alone does not authorize a sentence below a statutory minimum.
• Franks challenge succeeded — federal search warrant for trafficking stash house; warrant affidavit contained material misrepresentations about informant reliability; Franks hearing granted; warrant invalidated; all evidence suppressed; charges dismissed
• Entrapment established — government informant provided drug supply and distribution network; defendant not independently predisposed to traffic at charged level; entrapment presented to jury; acquitted
• Mitigating role reduction obtained — defendant's role in trafficking organization established as minimal through specific evidence of limited authority and limited knowledge of scope; USSG § 3B1.2 minimal role adjustment applied; guidelines range reduced significantly
• Firm-reported immigration-related charge reduction: The source describes a negotiated change and the client's reported ability to remain. Its result depends on the complete conviction record and personal immigration circumstances; it is not a guarantee for another person.

Firm-published client feedback below describes reported individual cases and is not proof of a general dismissal, sentence or immigration outcome:

"Facing 10+ years on federal trafficking charges. David challenged the wiretap — showed the government hadn't satisfied the necessity requirement — and got all the wiretap evidence suppressed. The entire case was dismissed. I had no idea wiretaps could be challenged that way." — Anonymous former client

"The government's quantity calculation would have meant 20 years. David brought in an independent expert who showed their calculation was based on unreliable cooperating witness testimony. The quantity was found below the mandatory minimum threshold. The difference was enormous." — Anonymous former client

"I was charged with conspiracy based on knowing some people involved in trafficking. David showed that knowing them and communicating with them wasn't the same as agreeing to traffic drugs with them. Acquitted on the conspiracy count." — Anonymous former client

"Non-citizen facing federal trafficking charges and mandatory deportation. David made charge reduction away from any trafficking offense the absolute priority from day one — and explained that even a conspiracy plea carried the same immigration consequences as trafficking itself. He achieved the reduction. I have been in this country for 20 years and I am still here." — Anonymous former client

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What triggers federal mandatory minimums in drug trafficking cases?

Section 841(b) sets drug-specific thresholds: for example, 500 grams of cocaine mixture or 100 grams of heroin can invoke a five-year tier; five kilograms of cocaine mixture or one kilogram of heroin can invoke a ten-year tier. The listed crack, methamphetamine and fentanyl tiers must be checked against the exact substance and mixture or actual-weight rules. See cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and fentanyl charge pages for separate topics. A prior ordinary felony drug conviction does not simply double each minimum: for principal higher tiers, one qualifying final serious drug felony or serious violent felony can mean a 15-year minimum, and two qualifying priors a 25-year minimum. Other § 841(b) tiers have different rules. Counsel should read the filed subsection, type, weight, prior notice and verdict or plea.

Can I avoid the mandatory minimum?

Possibly. Section 3553(f) has five current conditions, including the amended criminal-history test: no more than four countable points excluding one-point offenses, no prior three-point offense and no prior two-point violent offense. Violence or weapons, death or serious injury, leadership and truthful disclosure also matter. A qualifying finding removes the specified statutory minimum, though the court still applies sentencing law. Cooperation is separate: a government § 3553(e) motion may allow a below-minimum sentence; USSG § 5K1.1 alone concerns the advisory guideline range. A supported quantity challenge may change which minimum applies. Ask for the prior record, notice and actual motions.

What is the difference between federal and state drug trafficking?

Federal section 841 cases may involve drug-type and quantity minimums; California sections 11352 and 11379 have separate elements, ranges and enhancements. Federal investigators and county prosecutors can examine overlapping conduct, but neither jurisdiction automatically brings a particular charge. Federal custody credit and release eligibility depend on sentence, program and governing rules rather than a universal 87-percent promise. Compare the actual complaint, laboratory result and court jurisdiction.

What is the federal drug conspiracy charge — and can I be convicted just for knowing traffickers?

Federal drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846 requires proof of a knowing agreement between two or more people to commit drug trafficking and the defendant's knowing and voluntary participation in that agreement — with the same penalties as the underlying trafficking offense. Knowing someone who was trafficking, being present at locations where trafficking occurred, and communicating with members of a trafficking organization does not by itself establish conspiracy. The prosecution must prove the defendant specifically agreed to participate in the drug trafficking objective. The distinction between association and knowing participation is the most important legal question in every conspiracy case.

How serious are the immigration consequences — and does a conspiracy plea carry the same consequences as a trafficking plea?

A federal section 846 conspiracy conviction involving illicit drug trafficking can have aggravated-felony consequences under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), including its conspiracy clause. A minor role does not by itself remove that risk. Removal, eligibility for relief or protection, and a proposed alternative plea depend on the complete record and individual status. Obtain criminal and immigration counsel's review before a plea; do not assume either an automatic safe outcome or that every alternative drug offense is safe.

Does diversion apply to trafficking charges?

California treatment probation and PC 1000 pretrial diversion are state-law processes and do not themselves dispose of a federal section 841 or 846 charge. A local federal program, plea or dismissal requires its own legal authority and court approval. A negotiated state possession count may make a state program relevant only if the actual federal and state charges are separately resolved. Preserve the charging papers and obtain advice before any admission.

Are payment plans available?

Yes. The Law Offices of David Chesley offers flexible payment plans because cost should never be the reason someone facing drug trafficking charges goes without experienced legal representation during the phase when it matters most. 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

Federal trafficking allegations often require early review of the indictment, statutory subsection, quantity allegations, prior-conviction notice, discovery and deadlines. Bring any lab report, search warrant, wiretap notice, court order and immigration documents to counsel. A quantity challenge can change a tier only if the final finding supports it; a wiretap or search ruling affects particular evidence and may leave other proof. Cooperation, section 3553(f) and a plea each involve different disclosures and consequences. Ask which issue is actually supported by the records, what remains unknown and what must be decided before the next court date. Do not assume a case collapses, a cooperation window has closed or an immigration result is predetermined.

Don't make statements without counsel. Don't assume the case is too strong to challenge. Don't make the cooperation decision without experienced counsel. And don't wait. If you have been charged with or are under investigation for federal or state drug trafficking 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 case — including suppression opportunities, quantity vulnerabilities, conspiracy element challenges, immigration risks, and every available defense.

Flexible payment plans available — because cost should never be the reason someone facing drug trafficking charges goes without the experienced defense this case demands.

David Chesley handles drug trafficking defense in federal courts and 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

"Drug trafficking charges carry mandatory minimums, decades of prison time, and permanent aggravated felony immigration consequences. But every mandatory minimum must be proven by quantity, every wiretap must meet Title III requirements, and every conspiracy must show specific knowing participation. My commitment is identifying every vulnerability — in the surveillance, the quantity, the conspiracy, and the cooperation — and pursuing every defense from day one to achieve the best possible outcome." — David Chesley, California Criminal Defense Attorney