Maintaining a Place for Drug Sales/Use Defense Attorney

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 allowing others to use 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 intent was to sell, give away, or allow others to use the charged controlled substance on a continuous or repeated basis at that place. 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 possible profession-specific licensing effects and immigration issues that may be serious for a non-U.S. citizen; the final conviction record and any trafficking ground need individual review
• 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; video retention differs by agency, so identify the source and request preservation promptly

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 allowing others to use a specified drug continuously or repeatedly. 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 one year in county jail; probation and record consequences depend on the judgment, and later record relief is eligibility-specific
• Felony: A 16-month, two-year, or three-year state-prison term; the actual sentence and later record relief depend on the judgment and eligibility
• Possible occupation- and board-specific reporting or discipline, depending on the conviction and license rules
• Immigration consequences — possible federal controlled-substance and trafficking grounds, requiring review of the exact conviction record and immigration history
• 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 allowing others to use the specified controlled substance on a continuous or repeated basis, rather than relying on one isolated drug incident

Key Defense Targets:

• Purpose element — test whether the evidence proves intended continuous or repeated sale, giveaway, or allowing others’ use; ordinary living or work and transportation activity provide context, but do not automatically exclude drug activity
• Maintaining element — test who opened or maintained the place; visiting, leasing, co-occupancy and control are evidence, but exclusive control is not a universal element
• Knowledge — you did not know about the drug activity
• Suppression — unconstitutional search may exclude evidence obtained through the challenged search; other admissible proof may remain

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, a suppression motion may be available, depending on standing, the warrant or exception, attenuation and the particular evidence. A successful motion can materially affect the count, but it does not automatically exclude every item or require dismissal.

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: Some HS § 11366 warrants rely on confidential informant information about alleged activity at the location; counsel should examine the actual affidavit. Under Franks v. Delaware, a warrant affidavit that contained deliberate falsehoods or statements made with reckless disregard for the truth may support a Franks hearing only after a substantial preliminary showing of a deliberate or reckless, material falsehood or omission. At the hearing, the defendant must prove the misconduct; after setting aside the false material, the remaining affidavit must lack probable cause before the warrant is invalidated. The exclusion of particular evidence then follows the applicable search and remedy rules. 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 following an unlawful detention, and consent extracted through implied or express threats raise distinct voluntariness and taint questions under the full circumstances; detention alone does not decide validity. 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. A search beyond the scope of valid consent may support suppression of evidence from those areas or containers, subject to another valid authority and the particular remedy. 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. Under Kentucky v. King, officers may not rely on an exigency created by their actual or threatened Fourth Amendment violation; lawful investigative conduct that foreseeably prompts urgency is not automatically disqualifying. A legally insufficient claimed exigency can support a motion to exclude resulting evidence, subject to the actual entry facts and any other valid exception.

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 actual agency retention period expires.

Defense Two: Purpose and Continued Use of the Place

The purpose element deserves separate review. The prosecution must prove the intent described in CALCRIM 2440: selling, giving away, or allowing others to use the charged substance on a continuous or repeated basis at the place. The evidence may include multiple visits, communications, money, packaging, observations and admissions; any single item can have an innocent or another explanation. The instruction does not say that a lawful residential purpose automatically defeats the charge, nor does mere presence of drugs establish the necessary repeated unlawful purpose. Ask which acts, dates and participants the complaint actually alleges.

A home can have genuine residential uses and still be the subject of a section 11366 allegation. California’s 2026 CALCRIM 2440 asks whether the accused opened or maintained a place with the intent to sell, give away, or allow others to use a charged controlled substance on a continuous or repeated basis there. It does not require the drug activity to be the only reason the residence exists. Rent, mail, work schedules and ordinary household activity may help evaluate what actually happened, but do not automatically exclude the charge. Compare alleged transactions over time, visitor patterns, communications, witness accounts, packaging, and who could control the premises. A single instance of personal use is different from an intended continuing place for others’ drug use or sales; the prosecutor must prove the charged elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The same question applies if police rely on a vehicle, business or other location: who opened or maintained it, and what evidence shows an intent for repeated or continuous sale, giveaway, or others’ use at that place? Normal travel or commercial activity is relevant context, not conclusive immunity. A brief stop, one encounter, or another person’s isolated conduct should be compared with the pattern alleged in the complaint. If no continuing purpose is proved, the section 11366 count may fail even when a different drug count remains.

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, pay for it, control it or participate in its continuing operation, and whose relationship to the space was as a visitor or social guest — may dispute the allegation that they opened or maintained the place. 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 may have a factual defense to opening or maintaining the place; shared control alone does not settle the element, 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 exact conviction elements and record, not felony or misdemeanor label alone, control important immigration classification questions for non-U.S. citizen defendants.

Defense Six: Diversion

Current PC 1000 pretrial diversion lists eligible offenses and ordinarily does not include an unchanged HS § 11366 count. For a misdemeanor charge, counsel can test PC § 1001.95 against its statutory exclusions and ask the court to exercise discretion; a prosecutor may object, and eligibility does not guarantee an order. Any county drug-court program has its own admission criteria and must be checked locally. Mental-health diversion under PC § 1001.36 requires its statutory findings, not merely a diagnosis. Military diversion under PC § 1001.80 likewise depends on the person's service, condition and case facts. Each path should be examined before a plea without assuming admission or dismissal.

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 the identity of the specified controlled substance beyond a reasonable doubt; CALCRIM 2440 does not require one particular laboratory method. Chain of custody violations, methodology errors, and contamination challenges apply in HS § 11366 cases just as in simple possession cases. Where laboratory work is offered, counsel can test collection, chain of custody and the method; other admissible evidence of identity must also be considered.

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 serious possible removal and relief consequences that require an individualized immigration analysis, including for permanent residents

The Wobbler Immigration Analysis

For a noncitizen, the exact section 11366 conviction elements, admitted conduct and record require review by qualified immigration counsel. A misdemeanor rather than a felony sentence may matter for some questions, but the label alone does not decide whether a federal controlled-substance or trafficking ground applies. A plea that admits sale, giveaway or allowing others’ use can present different issues from an acquittal or dismissal; even a reduced charge may carry consequences. Compare available resolutions before any plea, and distinguish the criminal sentencing benefit of a misdemeanor reduction from any separate immigration conclusion.

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 may help if it leads to dismissal without a plea; that may avoid conviction-based grounds on this count, while other charges, admissions and immigration history still require individual review
• 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 exact record of conviction must be reviewed rather than assuming a misdemeanor label is safe
• 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. Firm-reported examples, whose evidence and results depend on the individual case:

• 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; continuing unlawful purpose not proved on the reported facts; 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; the alleged state-prison exposure from that count changed; collateral consequences required separate review
• 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; reported conviction-based risk avoided; other immigration effects require individual review

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 may change the proof and case outcome — 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.

Firm-reported case results; past outcomes do not establish what will happen in a different case:

• 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; continuing unlawful purpose reportedly was not established; 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; reported conviction-based risk avoided; other immigration effects require individual review

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

This is the firm’s account of one past case, not a rule for another person. Even a dismissal without a plea requires review of other charges, admissions and immigration history by qualified counsel.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

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

CALCRIM 2440 identifies two central elements: the defendant opened or maintained a place, and did so with the intent to sell, give away, or allow others to use a specified controlled substance or narcotic drug there on a continuous or repeated basis. Presence at someone else’s apartment, a personal-use incident or drugs found in a room does not by itself establish that continuing intent. On the other hand, a genuine residence or shared tenancy does not automatically defeat the charge. Review who controlled the place, alleged dates and visitors, communications, transaction evidence and what the defendant intended to permit. The jury instruction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt of the charged elements, and any other drug count has its own elements.

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 exact conviction record and immigration statute control classification; a misdemeanor label alone is not dispositive 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. A Franks v. Delaware challenge requires a substantial preliminary showing of deliberate or reckless, material falsehood or omission, followed by the required hearing findings; a mere mistake is not enough. Consent searches are challenged on voluntariness grounds. Coercion, a preceding unlawful detention and search beyond the scope of valid consent raise distinct voluntariness, taint and remedy questions under the case facts. Every search in every HS § 11366 case is examined for constitutional defects from the first consultation — and suppression may substantially change the case, but other admissible proof can remain and dismissal is a separate decision.

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

Knowledge may be relevant to whether the defendant intended to allow repeated drug activity by others, but the statutory question is not simply whether drugs were present. Review what the person knew about the specified substance, when they knew it, who controlled access, and whether they intended continuous or repeated sale, giveaway or others’ use at that place. A co-occupant’s independent conduct may create a real factual dispute; lack of visible activity alone is not proof of innocence. CALCRIM 2440 states the precise elements the prosecution must establish.

Is diversion available for HS § 11366?

Current PC 1000 pretrial diversion ordinarily does not cover an unchanged HS § 11366 count. For a misdemeanor HS § 11366 count, ask whether PC § 1001.95's exclusions apply and whether the judge would order diversion; a prosecutor's objection is not necessarily controlling. County drug-court admission rules differ. Mental-health and military diversion require their own statutory findings. Counsel should check the specific charge, criminal history, eligibility and court order before relying on any program.

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) — serious possible removal and relief consequences requiring individualized advice. The exact conviction elements and record, not that label alone, control immigration analysis. If suppression leads to dismissal without a plea, conviction-based consequences on this count may be avoided; other immigration questions remain. 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

A section 11366 defense starts with the actual complaint and the evidence of a continuing purpose. Ask what place was allegedly opened or maintained, which controlled substance is named, what conduct the prosecutor says was intended there, and whether the asserted sales, giveaways or others’ use were continuous or repeated rather than isolated. A lease, key or utility bill may show a relationship to the premises but does not alone prove the unlawful purpose. Likewise, ordinary residential activity does not automatically defeat the count. Compare dates, visitors, messages, surveillance, substance records and who controlled access. Statements attributed to other occupants need their own reliability and admissibility review.

Search issues are separate. Preserve the warrant or consent record, body-camera footage if it exists, police inventory, photographs and any communication showing who had access to the place. A suppression motion depends on this defendant’s ability to contest the search and on warrant, exception, attenuation and other evidence rules. Even a successful motion may leave other proof; dismissal requires its own case evaluation. Video retention varies by agency, so request preservation promptly without assuming a universal thirty- or ninety-day deadline.

If a plea is considered, check the exact conviction elements and record before treating misdemeanor reduction, diversion or dismissal as immigration-safe. The felony label alone does not decide federal immigration classification. Discuss whether a sale or giveaway allegation is supported and whether a distinct count can be resolved differently. These are fact-specific choices for the actual judge and prosecutor, not guaranteed results from a legitimate home, a shared lease or a claimed suppression defect.

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

Section 11366 requires proof that the accused opened or maintained the place with the intent to sell, give away, or allow others to use a specified controlled substance continuously or repeatedly there. The mere presence of drugs does not prove that purpose. Search issues, control of the place, the alleged activity over time, charge reduction and any available diversion each need separate review. David Chesley’s criminal defense practice can examine those issues against the actual complaint and evidence.