Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group. If federal or state prosecutors in Los Angeles have charged you with drug trafficking, you’re facing mandatory minimum sentences that could mean decades in prison – with judges powerless to reduce them. California’s position bordering Mexico means drug prosecutions here involve cartels, multi-kilogram quantities, and sophisticated distribution networks that prosecutors characterize as organized crime. Whether you’re charged in federal court under 21 U.S.C. § 841 or California state court under Health & Safety Code § 11352, the government must prove you knowingly participated in narcotics distribution. “Knowingly” is where defense happens.

Spodek Law Group is a second-generation law firm managed by Todd Spodek, with over 40 years defending drug cases. We handle federal prosecutions in the Central District of California and California state cases where quantities trigger sentencing enhancements that mirror federal mandatory minimums. Los Angeles drug cases differ from other jurisdictions because cartel involvement is presumed, wiretap evidence is common, and cooperating witnesses – often low-level distributors facing decades in prison – testify to reduce their own sentences. Defense requires attacking wiretap warrants, exposing cooperators’ motives to fabricate, and proving you weren’t the knowing participant prosecutors claim.

Fentanyl Transformed California Drug Prosecution

Fentanyl prosecutions dominate federal dockets in 2025. Prosecutors charge fentanyl distribution as second-degree murder when users overdose – arguing that anyone trafficking fentanyl knows it’s lethal and therefore has implied malice when deaths result. That’s not a fringe theory; it’s California Penal Code § 187 applied to drug cases, with convictions carrying 15-to-life sentences. Federal prosecutions similarly charge fentanyl distribution resulting in death under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), which carries mandatory 20-year minimums.

Defense in overdose cases requires demonstrating that you didn’t supply the fentanyl that caused death, that causation is speculative when users consumed multiple substances, or that you didn’t know the substance contained fentanyl. Drug mixtures containing fentanyl rarely are pure – dealers cut heroin with fentanyl, press fentanyl into counterfeit pills, or mix fentanyl with methamphetamine. When you sold what you believed was heroin or oxycodone, prosecutors claiming you “knew” it contained lethal fentanyl face knowledge problems that create reasonable doubt.

Mandatory Minimums Eliminate Judges from Sentencing

Federal drug mandatory minimums base sentences on drug quantities and prior convictions. Five kilograms of cocaine triggers a 10-year mandatory minimum. Fifty grams of methamphetamine actual (not mixture) triggers 10 years. Five hundred grams of cocaine triggers five years. These aren’t guidelines judges can vary from – they’re statutory minimums Congress imposed to eliminate judicial discretion and transfer sentencing power to prosecutors who decide what quantities to charge.

That creates coercive plea dynamics. Prosecutors offer five-year plea agreements when trial convictions would yield 10-year mandatories. Most people plead even when they have defensible cases – because losing at trial doubles their prison time. That’s not how the Founders envisioned justice. Judges are supposed to individualize sentences; mandatory minimums transform them into clerks who calculate drug weights and apply formulas. The only defense is challenging quantities themselves: arguing that you didn’t possess the entire amount seized, that portions belonged to others, or that government chemists miscalculated actual drug content versus cutting agents.

Wiretaps Pervade Los Angeles Drug Cases

Federal drug prosecutions in California routinely involve Title III wiretaps – court-authorized interception of phone calls, text messages, and encrypted communications. Prosecutors present wiretap evidence as conclusive proof of guilt: they have recordings of you discussing quantities, prices, delivery locations. But wiretap warrants require showing that normal investigative techniques were insufficient and that probable cause exists to believe specified individuals are using communications to commit drug offenses. When prosecutors fail to establish necessity or when applications contain false statements, wiretap evidence gets suppressed – and cases collapse.

We’ve successfully challenged wiretaps in federal cases where prosecutors claimed necessity but didn’t actually exhaust normal techniques before seeking wire authorization. Judges grant wiretap suppression motions reluctantly because they understand it often means case dismissals. But constitutional protections aren’t optional – when government violates statutes governing wiretaps, evidence doesn’t come in regardless of how probative it is. That’s called the exclusionary rule, and it exists precisely to deter constitutional violations.

Encrypted messaging platforms – Signal, WhatsApp, Telegram – create additional issues. Federal agents sometimes obtain content through cooperating witnesses who provide access to their devices, sometimes through “lawful hacking” warrants that allow remote access to phones. Whether those searches comply with Fourth Amendment particularity requirements depends on how broadly agents searched and whether they exceeded warrant scope. Challenging digital evidence requires understanding how agents obtained access, whether warrant applications contained all material facts, and whether searches were as limited as warrants authorized.

Cooperating Witnesses Lie to Reduce Their Sentences

Federal drug cases rely heavily on cooperators – co-defendants who plead guilty and testify against others to secure sentencing reductions under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1. Prosecutors claim cooperators are credible because they’re admitting their own guilt. That’s backwards – cooperators have enormous incentives to lie because their sentences depend on prosecutors’ satisfaction with their cooperation. The more defendants they implicate, the more “substantial assistance” they provide, the greater sentencing reductions they receive.

Cross-examining cooperators requires exposing their deals, demonstrating inconsistencies between their testimony and other evidence, and showing juries that testimony evolved to match what prosecutors wanted to hear. When cooperators initially denied your involvement then changed their stories after prosecutors explained how cooperation credit works – that’s powerful impeachment evidence. When cooperators exaggerate drug quantities to make cases seem more serious – that creates quantity disputes that affect everyone’s mandatory minimums.

California State Cases Parallel Federal Severity

California Health & Safety Code § 11352 (sale/transport of controlled substances) carries three to nine years for cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine. Enhanced penalties apply when you transported drugs across county lines, sold to minors, or have prior convictions. While state sentences are lower than federal mandatories, California’s Three Strikes law means that prior serious or violent felonies can double or triple sentences. If you have two prior strikes, any drug trafficking conviction results in 25-to-life even if the underlying offense carries single-digit years.

Proposition 36 (2012) reduced some drug possession offenses to misdemeanors and created treatment diversion options. But trafficking remains a felony with no diversion availability. Prosecutors treat trafficking and possession with intent to distribute as distinct from simple possession – and the distinction often hinges on quantities, packaging, scales, cash, and whether you had more drugs than personal use could explain. When police find an ounce of methamphetamine divided into multiple baggies, prosecutors charge trafficking even if you claim it was for personal use.

Fourth Amendment Violations Are Routine in Drug Cases

Most drug prosecutions begin with unconstitutional stops or searches. Police claim they smelled marijuana, conducted dog sniffs during traffic stops, or obtained consent to search. California legalized marijuana, which should eliminate “marijuana odor” as probable cause for searches – but officers still claim they smelled it and that justified searching for illegal drugs. Courts are split on whether marijuana odor establishes probable cause post-legalization; some hold it doesn’t, others hold it creates reasonable suspicion that illegal quantities or other drugs are present.

Prolonging traffic stops to conduct dog sniffs violates the Fourth Amendment under Rodriguez v. United States unless officers have reasonable suspicion independent of the traffic violation. When officers extend stops beyond the time necessary to write tickets, they’re conducting investigations that require constitutional justification. Defense requires demonstrating that stops were prolonged, that officers lacked reasonable suspicion, and that evidence discovered after the illegal extension should be suppressed.

Why Spodek Law Group Defends California Drug Cases

Todd Spodek defended Anna Delvey when Manhattan prosecutors and media had convicted her before trial. Defense wasn’t about likeability – it was about forcing the government to prove every element and demonstrating that alleged victims overstated harm. Drug cases involve similar dynamics: prosecutors rely on cooperators with credibility problems, experts who make assumptions about drug quantities and defendant roles, and judges who tell juries that mandatory minimums shouldn’t influence verdicts. But they do influence verdicts – juries sometimes acquit when they know convictions mean mandatory decades even for defendants who seem like minor participants.

We defend drug cases with awareness that most defendants aren’t cartel leaders prosecutors describe. Many are low-level couriers, addicts funding habits, or people coerced by others who vanish once arrests occur. That doesn’t necessarily constitute legal defense, but it informs how we present clients at sentencing – as individuals whose conduct, while illegal, doesn’t justify the draconian sentences mandatory minimums require.

When You’re Charged With Drug Trafficking in Los Angeles

Don’t speak to police without counsel. Officers claim cooperation helps; it doesn’t. Anything you say becomes evidence. Descriptions of your role, admission of knowledge, explanations of how distribution worked – all of that strengthens cases against you. Invoke your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Say nothing until you’ve consulted counsel who knows drug defense and sentencing.

Don’t consent to searches. Refuse even if you think they’ll search anyway. Consent eliminates Fourth Amendment protections entirely. Make them get warrants. Make them justify probable cause. Force them to follow procedures that create suppression opportunities when they cut corners.

Don’t contact co-defendants or witnesses. Obstruction charges add years to sentences and give prosecutors leverage to coerce pleas. If you must communicate, do it through counsel – those communications are privileged; your direct contact becomes evidence of consciousness of guilt or conspiracy.

Call Spodek Law Group. We’re available 24/7 to defend drug trafficking cases in federal and state courts. Los Angeles prosecutions involve wiretaps, cooperators, mandatory minimums, and sentencing enhancements that require attorneys who’ve litigated these issues successfully. We have – for over 40 years. Your first call should be to us.