Is Possession Really 9/10 of the Law?

click for free consultation

Is Possession Really 9/10 of the Law?

click for free consultation
Posted By William McAdams | March 12 2025 | Criminal Defense

The phrase “possession is 9/10 of the law” often comes up in legal discussions, but does it hold, especially in Colorado’s criminal justice system? Possession may imply ownership or control, but it is far from an absolute legal principle. Understanding the question: is possession 9/10 of the law? Requires an analysis of legal contexts and court interpretations.

McAdams Law Office explains that this term is often misconstrued and how it applies in criminal law based on possession.

Contact a DUI & Criminal Defense Lawyer

What Does ‘Possession Is 9/10 of the Law’ Mean?

The phrase “possession is 9/10 of the law” is less a strictly enforceable legal principle than an idiom. Traditionally, this meant that whoever had physical possession of an item had a superior argument for ownership to whoever else was making some claim to that exact item.

This saying originated in property disputes, although it has since spread far and wide to suggest that physical possession evinces a presumption of ownership.

However, in criminal law, possession often refers to being in control of an item that is deemed unlawful, such as illegal substances or unregistered firearms. Consequently, while the notion may influence public perception, legal challenges often depend on proving the context and intent behind possession rather than simply who has the item.

How Does Possession Apply in Legal Contexts?

Possession commonly appears as a critical consideration in several legal categories:

  • Property Law: Historically, possession supported ownership claims in property disputes. For instance, landlords or tenants could invoke possession rights in landlord-tenant conflicts.
  • Criminal Law: In this case, possession would be the key factor since law enforcement must prove that a person knowingly had possession of illegal drugs or stolen property.

In court cases, there are two general types of possession:

  • Actual possession – The physical possession of the item.
  • Constructive possession – Being aware of and in control of an object, but it is not in your possession, i.e., drugs in your apartment.

Possession in Criminal Law

Possession in criminal charges most commonly involves illegal drugs, firearms, or property stolen from another origin. According to Colorado Revised Statute §18-18-406, possession-related offenses are categorized based on type, weight, and intent. For example:

  • Possession of between 2 ounces and 6 ounces of marijuana is classified as a misdemeanor.
  • Possession of over 6 ounces results in harsher penalties, including increased fines and potential incarceration.

Criminal possession charges determine whether the prosecution can establish intent, knowledge, or actual control. Charges may extend beyond physical possession, and defenses are more complex.

Does Possession Always Guarantee Legal Ownership?

No. Possession does not always imply ownership. For example, borrowing a friend’s car puts you in possession of the vehicle but does not make you the legal owner. Similarly, constructive possession, such as carrying a package for someone, does not imply personal ownership.

When it comes to controlled substances, even unknowing possession can have legal consequences. According to NORML, Colorado law applies penalties for everything from minor possession to illegal cultivation of marijuana. Legal possession or intent, such as having a prescription, may serve as a partial defense against possession-related charges.

Defending Against Possession-Based Claims

Should you be charged with possession, understanding how the law applies is crucial in building a solid defense. Legal clarity is critical in Colorado, where controlled substance laws fall under both criminal and administrative classifications.

According to Legal Clarity Colorado, possible defenses against possession-related charges may include:

  • Proving a prescription justifies possession
  • Challenging evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches
  • Demonstrating a lack of awareness of possession (e.g., drugs were planted or unknowingly carried)

The Limits of the “9/10 of the Law” Rule

Possession may serve as evidence to support a claim in some situations, but it is not an absolute principle of criminal law. Courts require unequivocal proof to convict someone of a possession-related offense. Additionally, constitutional protections, such as the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, safeguard against wrongful possession charges.

Possession-based legal doctrines often fail to account for essential nuances, such as co-ownership or coercion, leading to potential wrongful convictions. For example, an individual may unknowingly possess an illegal substance or temporarily control a restricted item without intent, making their case susceptible to misjudgment.

While “possession is 9/10 of the law” carries cultural weight, the legal reality is far more complex. If you are arrested or face legal issues related to possession, your first move to protect your rights should be to call professional legal services at the McAdams Law Office.

In Need of Assistance? Call McAdams Law Office

McAdams Law Office can help with possession-related charges. Our experienced criminal defense attorneys can guide you through the legal process and develop the most vigorous possible defense for your case. Call us today at (970) 353-0000 to get the legal representation you need!

DUI/DWAI Victories Criminal Defense Wins

People v. S.M.

Two DUIs downgraded to DWAI,
avoided jail.

People v. M.J.

Assault and child abuse charges
dismissed, evidence issues.

People v. S.D.

DUI dismissed, pled to
Reckless Driving.

People v. S.C.

Theft charge dropped,
quick jury decision.

People v. B.S.

Breath test challenged,
DUI reduced to DWAI.

People v. A.E.

Drug charges dismissed,
validated medical use.

People v. E.B.

No jail, favorable plea despite
three priors.

People v. J.K.

Burglary plea reduced,
avoided severe penalty.

People v. R.G.

One DWAI dismissed, another reduced with minimal work release.

People v. C.R.

Traffic offense reduced,
license saved.

Request Free Consultation

  • *required fields
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
#

This page has been written, edited, and reviewed by a team of legal writers following our comprehensive editorial guidelines. This page was approved by Founding Partiner, William McAdams who has more than 25 years of legal experience as a personal injury attorney.