Thanks for visiting Spodek Law Group. If you’re reading this, federal or state prosecutors have likely charged you with drug trafficking – or you know charges are coming. That’s not a situation where you “wait and see what happens.” Drug trafficking charges in New York City trigger some of the harshest penalties in American criminal law, including mandatory minimum sentences that eliminate judicial discretion and transform plea negotiations into exercises in damage control rather than genuine negotiation.

Spodek Law Group is a second-generation law firm managed by Todd Spodek, with over 40 years of combined experience defending drug cases at the state and federal level. We’ve represented clients facing everything from street-level distribution charges to accusations of operating as major traffickers – the latter carrying mandatory life sentences under New York law. When prosecutors charge drug trafficking, they’re not alleging simple possession. They’re alleging you participated in commercial-scale narcotics distribution, often with enhancements for firearms, conspiracy, or involvement with minors. These cases require defense attorneys who understand the constitutional issues inherent in drug prosecutions: Fourth Amendment search and seizure violations, Fifth Amendment self-incrimination traps, Sixth Amendment confrontation rights when prosecutors rely on confidential informants.

Fentanyl Prosecutions Dominate 2025 Enforcement

Fentanyl has transformed drug enforcement in New York. In February 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced convictions in a case involving over 150,000 packets of fentanyl and heroin, with one defendant sentenced to 12 years in state prison. Another defendant was charged with Operating as a Major Trafficker – a charge carrying a mandatory life sentence. That’s not prosecutorial exaggeration; New York Penal Law specifically authorizes life sentences for large-scale narcotics operations.

Why fentanyl? Because it’s lethal in quantities measured in milligrams, not grams. Prosecutors argue that anyone trafficking fentanyl knowingly risks killing users. That moral framing affects how judges view defendants at sentencing: not as low-level participants in commerce that society hypocritically condemns while tolerating alcohol and prescription opioid epidemics, but as merchants of death. Defense requires confronting that narrative with evidence that most fentanyl trafficking defendants never handled pure fentanyl, didn’t know the precise drug they sold, or participated under coercion.

Mandatory Minimums Eliminate Judicial Discretion

Congress and New York’s legislature eliminated judges’ ability to sentence below statutory minimums in drug cases, transferring sentencing power to prosecutors who decide what charges to file. Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the First Degree carries a maximum of 20 years in prison. But weight thresholds trigger mandatory minimums: if prosecutors prove you sold 5.7 grams of fentanyl or 120 grams of cocaine, you’re looking at years in prison regardless of mitigating factors like first-time offense status, family circumstances, or rehabilitation potential.

That’s not how the founders envisioned criminal justice. Judges are supposed to individualize sentences based on the defendant, the offense, and the purposes of punishment. Mandatory minimums transform judges into calculators who add up drug weights and apply formulas. The only defense becomes challenging the weight itself: arguing that prosecutors can’t prove the entire quantity seized was attributable to you, that some quantity was for personal use rather than sale, or that confidential informants or co-conspirators exaggerate quantities to secure cooperation deals.

Fourth Amendment Violations Pervade Drug Cases

Most drug trafficking prosecutions begin with unconstitutional searches. Police stop your car claiming you failed to signal; they search claiming they smell marijuana; they seize kilograms of narcotics and arrest you. Or they conduct “knock and talk” at your apartment, claim you consented to entry, find drugs in plain view. Or they obtain warrants based on confidential informants whose reliability was never established, whose information was stale, or who fabricated details to satisfy handlers demanding productivity.

Suppressing evidence requires proving Fourth Amendment violations affected the search’s outcome. Courts don’t suppress evidence just because police violated your rights – they suppress evidence when violations were so egregious that allowing the evidence would undermine constitutional protections. That’s a doctrine called “good faith exception,” which essentially says if police violated your rights but didn’t know they were violating your rights, the evidence stands. It’s a doctrine that eviscerates the Fourth Amendment by rewarding police incompetence or indifference to constitutional limits.

But good faith has limits. When police lie in warrant applications, when they exceed a warrant’s scope, when they search without exigent circumstances justifying warrantless entry – those violations still result in suppression. We’ve successfully suppressed evidence in cases where prosecutors claimed searches were lawful, forcing dismissals or favorable plea offers once their evidence vanished.

Confidential Informants Create Confrontation Clause Issues

Drug prosecutions rely heavily on confidential informants. Prosecutors argue that revealing informants’ identities would endanger them and chill future cooperation. But the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause guarantees your right to confront witnesses against you. When informants provide evidence central to the prosecution – they claimed you sold them drugs, identified you as a supplier, described your operation’s structure – you have constitutional rights to cross-examine them, challenge their credibility, expose their motives to lie.

Courts balance informant safety against confrontation rights, but when informants are essential to proving guilt, disclosure is required. We’ve forced prosecutors to reveal informants or dismiss charges when courts agreed that undisclosed informant testimony was critical and no adequate substitute existed. That’s not common, but it’s constitutional – and it works when prosecutors overreach in claiming informant privilege.

New York’s Classifications Create Sentencing Complexity

New York categorizes controlled substances by schedule, with Schedule I and II including the most dangerous drugs: heroin, cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine. Fentanyl is Schedule II, placing it among substances with high abuse potential and limited medical use. Criminal Sale of a Controlled Substance in the First and Second Degrees are A-I and A-II felonies respectively, with maximum sentences of 24 years and 14 years. But the specific sentence depends on quantities, prior convictions, and whether aggravating factors apply – selling near schools, selling to minors, possessing firearms.

These enhancements aren’t trivial. Selling drugs within 1,000 feet of a school adds years to sentences. In New York City, that radius encompasses vast portions of the city given school density. Possessing firearms during drug trafficking triggers federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which carries mandatory consecutive sentences: five years for possessing a firearm, seven years if the firearm was brandished, ten years if discharged. Those sentences run consecutive to whatever sentence you receive for the underlying drug offense.

Operating as a Major Trafficker: New York’s Most Severe Drug Charge

New York Penal Law 220.77 defines Operating as a Major Trafficker: acting as a director of a controlled substance organization, with proceeds exceeding $75,000 in a six-month period. Conviction carries sentences of 25 years to life – effectively life in prison for anyone over 40 at sentencing. Prosecutors charge this rarely, but when they do, it’s because they believe they can prove large-scale operations involving multiple participants, substantial drug quantities, and evidence of organizational structure.

Defending these cases requires attacking each element: that you weren’t a “director” but a participant; that proceeds didn’t exceed thresholds; that the organization wasn’t cohesive but rather independent actors prosecutors falsely grouped under conspiracy theories. Federal RICO prosecutions use similar strategies, claiming loose associations constitute organized criminal enterprises. Constitutional protections require the government to prove each element beyond reasonable doubt – not beyond some doubt, but beyond *reasonable* doubt. That standard matters when prosecutors inflate charges to coerce pleas.

Why Todd Spodek’s Experience Matters

Todd Spodek represented Anna Delvey when Manhattan prosecutors and media had already decided she was guilty. The trial became a spectacle, eventually resulting in a Netflix series. But the principle applies to every case: when prosecutors and public opinion align against a defendant, constitutional protections are the only barrier between allegations and wrongful conviction. Drug defendants face similar dynamics – media coverage describes them as “dealers” and “traffickers” before trials begin; prosecutors characterize them as responsible for overdose deaths even when causal connections are speculative.

We defend drug cases with the understanding that most defendants are not the cartels prosecutors describe. Many are low-level participants, addicts funding their own habits, or people coerced into carrying drugs by others who vanish once arrests occur. That doesn’t necessarily constitute a legal defense, but it informs how we present clients to judges at sentencing – as human beings whose conduct, while illegal, doesn’t justify the draconian sentences prosecutors demand.

What to Do If You’re Charged With Drug Trafficking

Don’t speak to police without counsel present. Officers will claim that cooperation helps; it doesn’t. Anything you say will be used to prove guilt, establish drug quantities, identify co-conspirators, or demonstrate knowledge – elements prosecutors must prove but often struggle to establish without defendant statements. Invoke your Fifth Amendment right to remain silent. Say nothing until you’ve consulted counsel.

Don’t consent to searches. If police ask to search your car, home, or person, refuse. They’ll search anyway if they have probable cause or a warrant, but your refusal prevents prosecutors from claiming you consented. Consent eliminates Fourth Amendment protections entirely; once you consent, courts won’t suppress evidence no matter how invasive the search. Make them get a warrant. Make them justify probable cause to a judge. Force them to follow constitutional procedures.

Don’t contact co-defendants or potential witnesses. Prosecutors charge witness tampering and obstruction of justice when defendants communicate with others involved in their cases. Those charges add years to sentences and give prosecutors leverage to coerce pleas. If you need to communicate, do it through counsel – attorney-client communications are privileged; your direct communications with witnesses are evidence.

Call Spodek Law Group immediately. We handle drug trafficking cases at state and federal levels with the understanding that mandatory minimums and prosecutorial discretion have transformed drug defense into constitutional warfare. Prosecutors hold the power to charge or decline, to stack charges or show leniency, to recommend sentences or remain silent. Defense requires forcing them to prove every element, challenging every search, exposing every cooperating witness’s motive to lie. We’ve done it for decades. We’re available 24/7. Your first call should be to us.