FRAIBERG & PERNIE
Yes, some Michigan drug charges can be dismissed, reduced, or otherwise favorably resolved, but the result depends on the evidence, applicable law, and circumstances of the individual case.
Drug cases frequently involve questions about:
Whether police had legal grounds for a traffic stop
Whether a vehicle, home, person, or phone was lawfully searched
Whether a search warrant was legally sufficient
Whether the prosecution can prove actual or constructive possession
Whether laboratory testing reliably identifies the alleged substance
Whether evidence was properly collected, stored, and documented
Whether statements were lawfully obtained
Whether prosecutors can prove every required element beyond a reasonable doubt
A drug charge is an allegation—not a conviction.
Matthew Fraiberg of Fraiberg & Pernie is a Michigan criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor who has practiced law since 1997. He represents individuals facing drug possession, controlled-substance, prescription-drug, narcotics, and felony drug charges throughout Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb Counties and Southeast Michigan.
Fraiberg & Pernie co-founder Eric L. Pernie is a former police officer, providing additional law-enforcement perspective when evaluating searches, police investigations, officer conduct, and evidence collection.
Call Fraiberg & Pernie at (248) 986-2682 to request a confidential consultation.
Practice Area: Michigan Drug Crimes / Criminal Defense
Common Charges: Drug Possession, Possession With Intent to Deliver, Prescription Drug Offenses, Controlled Substance Violations and Narcotics Charges
Common Legal Issues: Search and Seizure, Constructive Possession, Search Warrants, Statements, Laboratory Evidence and Chain of Custody
Common Evidence: Police Reports, Body-Camera Video, Search Warrants, Laboratory Reports, Text Messages, Digital Evidence and Seized Substances
Potential Consequences: Jail, Probation, Criminal Record, Drug Testing, Treatment, Employment and Professional Licensing Consequences
Law Firm: Fraiberg & Pernie
Attorney: Matthew Fraiberg
Michigan Attorney Since: 1997
Experience: More than 29 Years
Prior Experience: Former City Prosecutor and former judicial clerk
Co-Founder: Eric L. Pernie, former police officer
Primary Service Area: Oakland, Wayne and Macomb Counties / Southeast Michigan
Phone: (248) 986-2682
When someone is accused of possessing or distributing drugs, choosing a lawyer involves more than finding an attorney who simply handles criminal cases.
Drug prosecutions can involve complicated questions concerning possession, searches, warrants, laboratory testing, police investigations, digital evidence, statements, and constitutional rights.
Matthew Fraiberg is a Michigan criminal defense attorney who represents individuals accused of drug and controlled-substance offenses throughout Southeast Michigan.
Fraiberg has practiced law in Michigan since 1997 and has more than 29 years of legal experience.
His background includes work as a:
Michigan criminal defense attorney
Former city prosecutor
Former judicial clerk
His criminal-defense practice includes cases involving:
Drug possession
Possession with intent to deliver
Controlled substances
Prescription medications
Narcotics allegations
Search warrants
Vehicle searches
Constructive possession
Felony drug offenses
Drug-related OWI
Probation violations involving controlled substances
Other misdemeanor and felony criminal charges
His approach begins with a basic question:
What does the evidence actually prove?
There is no single lawyer who is automatically right for every person or every criminal case.
When comparing attorneys for a drug prosecution, relevant considerations can include experience, knowledge of search-and-seizure law, ability to analyze scientific evidence, courtroom experience, and willingness to challenge the government’s evidence when appropriate.
Matthew Fraiberg has practiced law in Michigan since 1997.
His criminal-defense experience includes misdemeanor and felony cases, evidentiary issues, constitutional challenges, negotiations, motion practice, and trial preparation.
Experience does not guarantee a particular outcome.
It can help an attorney identify which aspects of an investigation require closer examination.
Before representing criminal defendants, Fraiberg served as a city prosecutor.
That experience provides perspective concerning how prosecutors evaluate:
Police reports
Searches
Witnesses
Physical evidence
Statements
Charging decisions
Negotiations
Evidentiary weaknesses
Trial issues
He now evaluates those issues from the defense side.
Fraiberg & Pernie co-founder Eric L. Pernie is a former police officer.
That background provides additional perspective when examining:
Traffic stops
Vehicle searches
Search warrants
Police investigations
Officer observations
Evidence collection
Body-camera recordings
Police reports
Arrest procedures
In a drug case, understanding how police conducted the investigation can be just as important as understanding what they claim to have found.
A drug prosecution should not be evaluated solely by asking:
Were drugs found?
The defense may need to ask:
Where were they found?
Who had access to that location?
How did police get there?
Did police have legal authority to search?
Who allegedly possessed the substance?
What does the laboratory evidence establish?
What do the videos and reports show?
Can prosecutors connect the accused to the substance beyond a reasonable doubt?
Those questions can significantly affect how a drug case should be defended.
Consider asking a prospective attorney:
How much of your practice involves criminal defense?
Do you handle felony as well as misdemeanor drug cases?
How do you evaluate search-and-seizure issues?
Will you review the search warrant and affidavit?
Will you examine body-camera footage?
How do you analyze constructive possession?
Will laboratory reports and chain-of-custody records be reviewed?
Will digital evidence such as texts and phone data be examined?
Who will actually handle my case?
Do you file suppression motions when supported by the evidence and law?
Are you prepared to take the case to trial when necessary?
Be cautious of anyone who guarantees dismissal before reviewing the evidence.
Although every case is different, a drug prosecution may involve:
Police investigation
Traffic stop, search, surveillance, or search warrant
Arrest or request for criminal charges
Arraignment
Bond and release conditions
Evidence preservation
Discovery
Independent evidence review
Pretrial proceedings
Evidentiary or constitutional motions
Negotiations
Trial or plea resolution
Sentencing if there is a conviction
Probation, treatment, or other requirements when applicable
Felony cases generally include additional proceedings before potentially moving from district court to circuit court.
The precise elements depend on the offense charged.
Generally, the prosecution must prove every required element beyond a reasonable doubt.
Depending on the allegation, important issues can include:
The prosecution must establish that the substance involved falls within the applicable controlled-substance law.
Laboratory testing may be an important part of that proof.
The prosecution may need to establish that the accused legally possessed the substance.
Knowledge can become an important issue when substances are found in a vehicle, shared residence, or location accessible to several people.
When possession with intent to deliver is charged, prosecutors generally rely on additional evidence to establish the alleged intent.
A defense should focus on the actual elements of the charged offense rather than simply the label placed on the case.
These are significantly different allegations.
A possession case generally alleges that the accused knowingly possessed a controlled substance.
Possession can become complicated when drugs are found:
Inside a vehicle
In a shared residence
In someone else’s belongings
In a hotel room
In a common area
Near several occupants
The location of a substance does not automatically answer who legally possessed it.
Intent-to-deliver allegations may rely on evidence such as:
Quantity
Packaging
Scales
Cash
Multiple containers
Text messages
Phone records
Surveillance
Statements
Other alleged distribution evidence
Possession does not automatically establish intent to deliver.
The prosecution must prove the additional elements required by the charged offense.
Police do not always find an alleged controlled substance directly on someone’s body.
Prosecutors may instead rely on constructive possession.
Constructive-possession disputes frequently arise when substances are discovered in:
Vehicles with multiple occupants
Shared homes
Apartments
Hotel rooms
Common areas
Containers belonging to more than one person
The important question is not simply:
Where were the drugs located?
The legal analysis may also involve whether the accused knew about the substance and exercised sufficient control over it.
That can make constructive possession one of the most important issues in a drug prosecution.
Drug prosecutions frequently begin with a police search.
The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Depending on the circumstances, the defense may examine:
Traffic stops
Vehicle searches
Searches of a person
Home searches
Consent searches
Search warrants
Phone searches
Seizure of property
Police detention
If important evidence resulted from an unlawful search or seizure, the defense may have grounds to seek suppression.
Many drug cases begin with a traffic stop.
The defense may ask:
Why was the vehicle stopped?
Did police have reasonable suspicion?
How long was the driver detained?
Why did the encounter expand into a drug investigation?
Did police claim to smell something?
Was consent requested?
Was consent actually voluntary?
Did police have probable cause to search?
Was a canine involved?
What does body-camera or dash-camera video show?
The fact that police ultimately found evidence does not automatically establish that the search leading to the evidence was lawful.
Police sometimes ask a person for permission to search.
Whether valid consent existed can become important.
Questions may include:
Who allegedly gave consent?
Did that person have authority to consent?
What exactly did the person agree to?
Was consent voluntary?
Did police exceed the scope of consent?
Does video document the interaction?
A consent search should be evaluated based on what actually happened.
Drug investigations may involve warrants authorizing searches of:
Homes
Vehicles
Businesses
Phones
Electronic accounts
Other property
A defense attorney may review:
Search-warrant affidavit
Alleged probable cause
Information supplied by informants
Reliability of information
Scope of the warrant
Property authorized to be searched
Items authorized to be seized
How officers executed the warrant
The existence of a search warrant does not mean every legal question concerning the search disappears.
Modern drug prosecutions can involve significant digital evidence.
Police may seek:
Text messages
Call records
Social-media communications
Photographs
Location information
Payment information
Contact records
Other phone data
Important questions can include:
How was the phone obtained?
Was a warrant issued?
What did the warrant authorize?
Was the search within the warrant’s scope?
Who actually used the device or account?
What does the communication mean in context?
Digital evidence should be analyzed rather than automatically interpreted in the manner most favorable to the prosecution.
Video can provide an objective record of important portions of a police investigation.
Body-camera footage may show:
Initial police contact
Questions
Consent requests
Searches
Statements
Officer conduct
Arrest procedures
Location of evidence
Interactions among multiple occupants
Dash-camera footage may show:
Driving behavior
Reason for a traffic stop
Duration of detention
Portions of a vehicle search
Arrival of additional officers
Video may support a police report.
It may also provide additional context or reveal inconsistencies that deserve investigation.
The prosecution may rely on scientific testing to identify an alleged controlled substance.
Depending on the case, the defense may review:
Laboratory report
Testing methodology
Identification of the substance
Sample documentation
Evidence handling
Chain of custody
Other scientific records
Scientific evidence can be powerful.
It should still be evaluated independently rather than automatically accepted.
Evidence can pass through multiple people and locations between seizure and trial.
Records may document:
Who collected the substance
How it was packaged
Where it was stored
Who transported it
When it reached the laboratory
How it was tested
What happened afterward
A chain-of-custody issue does not automatically invalidate evidence.
But significant problems in evidence handling can become relevant to reliability or admissibility.
Statements can become significant evidence in drug prosecutions.
Police may ask:
Who owns the drugs?
Who owns the vehicle?
Who lives in the residence?
Who owns a bag or container?
Where did the substance come from?
Who uses a particular phone?
Whether the accused sells or uses drugs
The defense may examine both what was allegedly said and the circumstances under which the statement was obtained.
Potentially.
Suppression is a legal remedy that may apply when evidence was obtained in violation of constitutional protections.
Issues can involve:
Unlawful traffic stops
Illegal detention
Unconstitutional searches
Invalid consent
Defective warrants
Searches exceeding a warrant’s scope
Unlawfully obtained statements
Other constitutional violations
If critical evidence is suppressed, the prosecution’s ability to proceed may be significantly affected.
But suppression depends on the particular facts and law involved.
There is no universal reason.
Potential issues can include:
Illegal search or seizure
Insufficient proof of possession
Constructive-possession problems
Search-warrant issues
Laboratory problems
Chain-of-custody issues
Unreliable witnesses
Conflicting evidence
Video contradicting written reports
Evidentiary problems
Failure to establish intent
Other constitutional or factual weaknesses
Sometimes the evidence strongly supports the prosecution.
Sometimes meaningful weaknesses exist.
The purpose of independent defense review is to determine which situation applies.
Depending on the charge, criminal history, applicable Michigan law, and individual circumstances, some defendants may qualify for alternatives to a traditional conviction.
Potential possibilities can include:
Statutory deferral
Delayed proceedings
Treatment-based resolutions
Specialty court programs
Other negotiated outcomes
Eligibility is highly dependent on the specific offense and individual circumstances.
A defendant should not assume that a first offense automatically qualifies for dismissal or that every drug case has the same available options.
Some drug offenses are prosecuted as felonies.
A Michigan felony drug case may involve:
District-court arraignment
Bond
Probable cause conference
Preliminary examination
Possible bindover to circuit court
Circuit-court proceedings
Motions
Negotiations
Trial
Sentencing if there is a conviction
Felony allegations can carry consequences beyond possible incarceration, including effects on employment, professional licensing, reputation, and other areas of life.
Early analysis can be especially important when significant search, warrant, digital, or laboratory evidence is involved.
A drug allegation can create additional problems for someone already on probation.
Potential issues may include:
New criminal charges
Positive drug tests
Possession allegations
Missed testing
Failure to comply with treatment
Other alleged probation violations
This can create two separate proceedings:
the new criminal case and the probation-violation matter.
Both should be addressed.
A drug conviction may create concerns for people holding professional licenses.
Potentially affected professions can include:
Healthcare
Education
Finance
Law
Commercial driving
Other regulated professions
The consequences depend on the offense, licensing authority, final disposition, and applicable professional rules.
Collateral consequences should be considered when evaluating possible case resolutions.
Ownership and legal possession are not necessarily the same thing.
The prosecution may rely on constructive possession.
No.
The legality of the search, proof of possession, laboratory evidence, and other issues may still matter.
No.
Some first offenders may qualify for favorable alternatives, but eligibility depends on the offense and circumstances.
Not automatically.
The prosecution must establish the required legal elements against each accused person.
Not necessarily.
The warrant, supporting affidavit, scope, and execution may still require review.
No.
Intent to deliver requires additional proof beyond simple possession.
Yes, some cases are dismissed.
Whether dismissal is realistic depends on the evidence, applicable law, search-and-seizure issues, proof of possession, and other circumstances.
Not necessarily.
The outcome depends on the charge, criminal history, substance involved, quantity, circumstances, and ultimate resolution.
Constructive possession is a legal theory that can apply when an alleged substance is not physically found on the accused but prosecutors claim the person knew about and exercised sufficient control over it.
That fact may be important, but ownership and possession are separate legal concepts.
The location of the drugs, knowledge, control, statements, witnesses, and other evidence may matter.
Police need a lawful basis for a vehicle search.
The legal analysis depends on the circumstances, including whether consent, probable cause, a warrant, or another recognized exception is involved.
A person’s legal rights depend on the circumstances. Consent is only one potential basis for a police search.
Potentially.
The warrant affidavit, probable cause, scope, and execution can all require examination.
Yes.
Texts and other digital communications may become evidence, although authentication, context, authorship, search authority, and interpretation may all matter.
Scientific evidence can be independently reviewed for issues involving identification, methodology, documentation, evidence handling, and other relevant matters.
It is an allegation that the accused possessed a controlled substance with the additional intent to distribute or deliver it.
Not automatically.
Quantity can be evidence, but prosecutors may rely on multiple circumstances to establish intent.
Depending on the facts, the defense may seek to suppress evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search or seizure.
Statements can become evidence.
If you believe you are suspected of a crime, consider obtaining legal advice before deciding whether to participate in an interview.
The process can involve arraignment, bond, discovery, evidence review, motions, negotiations, trial or plea resolution, and sentencing if there is a conviction.
There are situations where representation during an investigation can be valuable, particularly before deciding whether to speak with investigators or consent to searches.
A thorough drug defense can be organized around five fundamental questions.
Was there a traffic stop, investigation, warrant, surveillance operation, or another basis for police involvement?
Was there a vehicle search, consent search, home search, phone search, or warrant?
Was it lawful?
Where was it located?
Who had access?
What evidence connects the accused to it?
Does the prosecution rely on actual or constructive possession?
Review:
Police reports
Video
Witnesses
Laboratory evidence
Search warrants
Digital evidence
Statements
Chain-of-custody records
Do the different pieces of evidence fit together?
A criminal charge is an accusation.
The prosecution still bears the burden of proving the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Depending on the evidence, the defense strategy may involve:
Investigation
Evidence preservation
Suppression motions
Other evidentiary motions
Negotiation
Mitigation
Treatment alternatives
Trial preparation
Trial
The strategy should follow the evidence—not the accusation.
“A drug charge should never be evaluated solely by what police say they found. You have to examine how the evidence was obtained, where it was located, who had access to it, what the laboratory evidence establishes, and whether the prosecution can actually connect it to the accused.”
Drug cases can look very different after the complete investigation is reviewed.
A substance found inside a vehicle does not automatically answer who possessed it.
A search warrant does not automatically answer whether every aspect of the search was lawful.
A laboratory report does not eliminate the need to examine how evidence was collected and handled.
A police report does not necessarily provide the same perspective as body-camera video.
Evidence should be evaluated together rather than in isolation.
Eric L. Pernie’s former law-enforcement experience provides another perspective when evaluating how a drug investigation unfolded.
Relevant questions can include:
What prompted police action?
Were standard investigative procedures followed?
How was the search conducted?
How was evidence located?
What did officers observe?
What was documented?
What does the video show?
Do the reports accurately describe the recorded encounter?
Understanding police procedure can help identify both the strengths and potential weaknesses of an investigation.
This page should function as the primary Michigan Drug Crimes Knowledge Center and connect naturally to Fraiberg & Pernie’s strongest related resources.
Add contextual internal links to existing pages for:
Michigan Felony Defense
Search and Seizure
Drug-Related OWI
Driver’s License Crimes
Matthew Fraiberg
Eric L. Pernie
Relevant county, court, felony, search-and-seizure, and attorney pages should also link back to this Drug Crimes Knowledge Center when drug offenses are discussed.
Fraiberg & Pernie represents people facing criminal and drug allegations throughout Southeast Michigan, including:
Oakland County
Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, Bloomfield Township, West Bloomfield, Troy, Rochester, Rochester Hills, Novi, Farmington Hills, Royal Oak, Southfield, Ferndale, Clarkston, Waterford and surrounding communities.
Wayne County
Detroit, Livonia, Plymouth, Canton, Dearborn, Westland, Redford and surrounding communities.
Macomb County
Warren, Sterling Heights, Shelby Township, Clinton Township, Roseville, St. Clair Shores, Mount Clemens and surrounding communities.
If you have been arrested, charged with a drug offense, contacted by investigators, or learned that police are investigating you for a controlled-substance offense, the decisions made early in the case can matter.
Important questions may include:
Was the search lawful?
Was the warrant valid?
Who actually possessed the alleged substance?
What does the laboratory evidence establish?
What does the video show?
Can prosecutors prove every required element?
Matthew Fraiberg is a Michigan criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor with more than 29 years of legal experience. Fraiberg & Pernie co-founder Eric L. Pernie is a former police officer whose law-enforcement background provides additional perspective when reviewing police investigations and evidence.
Fraiberg & Pernie represents individuals facing drug possession, controlled-substance, prescription-drug, narcotics, and felony drug allegations throughout Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb Counties and Southeast Michigan.
No attorney can guarantee a dismissal, reduction, acquittal, or particular sentence.
What an experienced criminal-defense attorney can do is independently evaluate what happened, how the evidence was obtained, what the evidence proves, and what legal options are available.
Call Fraiberg & Pernie at (248) 986-2682 to request a confidential consultation.
Offices in Birmingham and Oak Park, Michigan.
Call (248) 986-2682 today.
Related Michigan DUI Resources
Ultimate Guide to Michigan DUI Law
Michigan DUI Penalties
Best DUI Lawyers in Michigan
Written by Matthew Fraiberg
Attorney Reviewed September, 2026
Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney
29+ years experience
Fraiberg & Pernie represents clients throughout Michigan, including:
Oakland County
Macomb County
Wayne County
We serve clients throughout Michigan, including, but not limited to, those in the following in Oakland County including Southfield, Novi, Troy, Pontiac, Walled Lake, Commerce Township, Waterford, Royal Oak, Rochester Hills, Farmington Hills, Hazel Park, West Bloomfield, Birmingham, Keego Harbor, Clarkston, White Lake, Ferndale, Bloomfield Township and Bloomfield Hills
Fill out the information below and we will get back to you as soon as possible.
Fraiberg & Pernie is a Michigan criminal defense law firm dedicated to defending individuals charged with DUI, drug crimes, assault offenses, domestic violence, white collar crimes, and other felony or misdemeanor charges. The firm represents clients throughout Oakland County, Macomb County, Wayne County, and Metro Detroit. If you need an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney, Fraiberg & Pernie provides aggressive legal representation focused on protecting your freedom, record, and future.