Arrest for drug-related offenses, whether for possession or driving under the influence, is an extremely common scenario. Although the law stipulates that police detention is not mandatory in all cases, it is routinely carried out without any necessity.
In this article, we share several cases from our practice in which our clients were arrested for drug possession, which was subsequently overturned by the court.
Silvia Petkova Sole Proprietorship Law Firm is a leading criminal law firm in the country, specializing in representing clients charged with drug-related crimes. We have experienced and highly qualified criminal lawyers with a high success rate in drug-related detention cases. We provide legal assistance and representation throughout the country.
Arrest for drugs – cases from the law firm
Case 1: detention for possession of drugs
Ivo* was walking home from a well-known bar where he had spent the evening with friends. Since he was dressed entirely in black and wearing a hood over his head (a common reason for conducting illegal checks on citizens), police officers stopped him and asked for his ID.
After presenting his ID card, the police officers ordered Ivo to empty his pockets, which he did. In one pocket of his jacket, there were two transparent capsules containing a white powdery substance. The police officers immediately handcuffed Ivo, believing that the capsules contained narcotics, and detained him at the nearest police station. A detention order was issued for the arrest.
IMPORTANT! Police officers often instruct citizens who are being checked without justification to empty their pockets themselves in order to avoid the procedure for conducting a personal search in accordance with the Law on the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This constitutes a circumvention of the law. If a police officer has evidence that a particular person is in possession of narcotic substances, they should conduct a personal search and issue the relevant report.
Within the statutory time limit and with the assistance of a lawyer from the sole proprietorship law firm “Silvia Petkova,” the arrest for drugs was challenged before the competent court. During the trial, the police failed to prove that at the time of the arrest for drug possession, there was evidence that the capsules in Ivo’s pocket contained narcotic substances.
The court declared Ivo’s detention unlawful because it was carried out without legal grounds. The latter would have been present if the police officers had had evidence that Ivo was in possession of narcotic substances at the time of his detention.
The decision has entered into force and Ivo has currently filed a lawsuit for compensation for unlawful detention through a lawyer from the sole proprietorship law firm “Silvia Petkova.”
Case 2: detention for driving after using drugs
Aneta* suffers from headaches and therefore takes specific medication and drives to work in her company car. During a chase between a police patrol and a car suspected of transporting illegal migrants, Aneta is involved in a traffic accident that was not caused by her. She suffers minor injuries—a concussion and bruising in the chest area.
An ambulance arrives at the scene and takes Aneta to the emergency room of the nearest hospital for medical assistance. A series of examinations are carried out, various medications are administered, and then, at Aneta’s insistence, she is released for home treatment.
At the hospital exit, Aneta was met by two traffic police officers who informed her that she would be tested for drug use because she had been involved in a traffic accident. Aneta agreed, even though it had been a long time since she had stopped driving, and the test was not carried out at the scene of the accident. Aneta agreed because she had never used drugs and thought she had nothing to worry about.
However, Aneta’s test proved positive for opiates. She was taken to an accredited medical facility to give blood and urine samples, and was then detained for up to 24 hours on drug charges.
Immediately after her release, Aneta provided biological samples to a private laboratory, and the test results showed that she had not used narcotics, but medication.
Within the statutory time limit and with the assistance of a lawyer from a sole proprietorship law firm company “Silvia Petkova” the actual arrest for drugs was challenged before the competent court. During the trial, it was established through the results of the accredited a22> laboratory that Aneta had used drugs and that with regard to her no should have been carried out detention for drugs. Furthermore more, the court emphasizes the fact that Aneta was tested some time after stopping driving, and her detention was absolutely unacceptable, given her medical condition.
Case 3: detention for driving after using drugs
Trip* is a foreign citizen who was on a motorcycle trip with his friends in Bulgaria. As a result of the long motorcycle trip, Trip experienced pain in his back and lower back, so he bought a painkiller from the pharmacy without a prescription and took it.
On the same day, Trip and his friends were stopped for a routine check, and all drivers were tested for drug use. All results were negative except for Trip’s—he tested positive for benzodiazepines. His license was revoked, his motorcycle’s license plates were removed, and he was arrested for drug possession. Before being taken to the local police station, Trip insisted on giving a blood sample, for which purpose he was taken by police officers to the nearest medical facility.
Within the statutory time limit and with the assistance of a lawyer from the sole proprietorship law firm “Silvia Petkova,” the arrest for drugs was challenged before the competent court. The court did not wait for the results of the drug tests on Trip from the accredited laboratory, nor were the results from a private laboratory presented. Nevertheless, the arrest for drug possession was declared unlawful on the grounds that at the time of the inspection it was not clear whether Trip had used a narcotic substance or a medicine.
Trip has waived his right to sue for damages for unlawful detention because he does not wish to continue to deal with the Bulgarian justice system. He is currently residing in his home country and has not returned to Bulgaria.
* Names have been changed to protect attorney-client privilege.
Contact us
Working hours: Monday to Friday from 10:00 to 18:00
Address: Sofia, 2 Tri Ushi St., floor 3
tel. 0885 47 77 57
email: office@petkovalegal.com
AND OR