Is bail available in a drug supply case?

It depends on the specific charge classification, the defendant's criminal history and the procedural risk assessment. Even where the prosecution maintains a supply charge, there is often room to contest the quality of the circumstantial evidence, the lawfulness of the procedure and alternative coercive measures (bail bonds, conduct conditions, home detention where applicable).

What can I do if I believe evidence was planted during the police procedure?

Early action is critical: identifying contradictions between the procedural records, witness accounts, CCTV footage, timings, seals and handling of the seized items. The technical defence focuses on operational inconsistencies and chain of custody.

Is telephone interception evidence admissible?

It can be relevant, but it must have been authorised by a court with proper grounds stated. If the interception was disproportionate or lacked sufficient prior basis, its nullity and any evidence derived from it can be challenged.

Federal or provincial courts? What happens with street-level supply charges?

It depends on the specific facts and the applicable jurisdictional framework. Some cases are handled in the provincial courts under the jurisdictional transfer scheme, while others remain in the federal courts depending on scale, organisation and mode of supply. The defence strategy is built around the specific case file and the competent court.

LAW 23,737 — CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

Criminal Defence: Drug Offences and Controlled Substances (Law 23,737)

Updated: 20 January 2026

Possession, personal use and supply. Technical criminal defence focused on procedural nullities, evidentiary quality (records, chain of custody, expert analysis) and liberty strategies.

TELEPHONE ASSISTANCE

CONFIDENTIAL ENQUIRY

If there is a detention or an emergency at a police station, go directly to 24-hour Bail & Release.

Charge classification Nullities & evidence Jurisdiction Urgent checklist FAQs

Executive summary (for decisions under time pressure)

Liberty depends on the charge classification and the procedural risk assessment (community ties, criminal history, conduct in the proceedings).
Evidence typically originates from personal searches, property searches or surveillance operations. If the initial step is unlawful, everything that follows is seriously weakened.
Large-scale trafficking (organised networks, transportation, significant quantities) requires a different strategy: the approach is federal and the evidentiary issues are more complex.

The three typical charge classifications

In proceedings under Law 23,737, the central question is almost always which conduct is being attributed and how the prosecution intends to prove it. A possession-for-personal-use scenario is very different from a supply hypothesis.

1) Possession for personal use

A small quantity in circumstances consistent with self-consumption. The defence focuses on dismantling any inference of supply, reviewing the lawfulness of the procedure and framing the case in line with applicable case law on personal use.

2) Simple possession (the "grey zone")

A controlled substance is present but there is no solid evidence of its intended destination — neither supply nor unequivocal personal use. Here the weight falls on expert analyses, procedural records, witness accounts, chain of custody and the overall coherence of the file. There are often grounds to contest the charge classification and the coercive measures applied.

3) Supply / drug supply offences (street-level or greater scale)

The prosecution typically relies on circumstantial evidence: pre-packaged portions, scales, cash, message histories, interception evidence, surveillance. The technical defence targets: (i) the lawfulness of the origin of that evidence; (ii) the strength of the inferences drawn; (iii) operational inconsistencies; and (iv) expert analysis of devices, weight, and CCTV material.

VIEW CASE LAW (DRUG OFFENCES)

Strategy: nullities and evidence

The issues most commonly litigated in drug offence cases

Personal or vehicle search without sufficient grounds (generic pro-forma records).
Property searches authorised on weak or template-based grounds.
Procedural witnesses: timings, seizure and weighing process (inconsistencies).
Chain of custody: what was seized, how it was preserved, who handled it.
Device forensic analysis: extraction, integrity, conversational context of messages.
Interception orders without sufficient prior basis or with disproportionate extensions.

“Fruit of the poisonous tree”

If the initial step — a personal search, a property search or an interception order — is unlawful, the evidence obtained as a result is seriously called into question. This can affect the charge classification and even the viability of the entire case.

VIEW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE STRATEGY GUIDE: SEARCHES & SEIZURES

Note: If a device has been seized, procedural records drawn up or an arrest made, the window for action narrows by the hour.

Federal or provincial courts?

In Argentina, controlled substance offences are governed by Law 23,737. Depending on the specific facts — scale, organisation, mode of supply and transportation — and the applicable jurisdictional framework, proceedings may be conducted before the federal courts or the provincial courts in jurisdictions that have adopted the jurisdictional transfer scheme for street-level offences.

At Selser, Testa & Asoc. we appear before both courts, from the initial formal hearing and detention hearings through to nullity applications and, where the case proceeds, oral trial.

Urgent checklist (first 24 hours)

If a police procedure has taken place

Obtain or preserve photographs of the procedural records, seized items and the scene.
Note the time, location, patrol vehicle numbers, police unit and officer names if available.
Identify whether there were lay witnesses to the procedure and how they came to be present.
Do not sign anything “in blank” or accept a “summary” without reading it carefully.

If a mobile phone or device has been seized

Do not delete any content: the defence relies on context and integrity of the data.
Establish who had access to the device and whether it was properly sealed at the time of seizure.
Seek advice on the forensic examination: this is often where the case is decided.

Frequently Asked Questions

Possession for personal use typically involves a small quantity in circumstances consistent with self-consumption. Simple possession is the “grey zone”: a controlled substance is present but there is no unequivocal evidence of its intended destination. In both scenarios, the quality of the evidence and the lawfulness of the procedure are determinative.

An anonymous tip-off, by itself, should not justify intrusive measures without prior corroboration. If the search was authorised on weak, generic or template-based grounds, its lawfulness and the validity of the evidence obtained can be challenged — and the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine may apply to everything that follows.

It depends on the specific charge, the defendant’s criminal history and the procedural risk assessment. Even where the prosecution maintains a supply charge, there is often scope to contest the quality of the circumstantial evidence, challenge the lawfulness of the procedure and argue for alternative coercive measures — bail bonds, conduct conditions, or home detention where applicable.

Early action is critical. The defence focuses on identifying contradictions between the procedural records, the accounts of lay witnesses, CCTV footage, the timings in the record, the condition of the tamper-evident seals and the handling of seized items. Operational inconsistencies and chain of custody irregularities are the central analytical tools.

It can be relevant, but it must have been authorised by a court with adequate grounds stated. If the interception order was disproportionate or was granted without sufficient prior factual basis, its nullity — and the admissibility of any evidence derived from it — can be challenged.

It depends on the specific facts and the applicable jurisdictional rules. Some cases are handled in the provincial courts under the jurisdictional transfer scheme for street-level offences; others remain in the federal courts depending on the scale, the degree of organisation and the mode of supply. The defence strategy is built around the specific case file and the competent court.

Detention or drug offence proceedings in CABA or the Province?

Time is critical for challenging the lawfulness of the procedure and preserving useful evidence. Instruct a specialist defence lawyer immediately.

APPLY FOR BAIL & RELEASE