Despite Conditional Dismissal of Drug Charges, Patrick Chung Could Still Be Penalized by NFL

On Monday, it was reported that New England Patriots safety Patrick Chung had his felony charge for cocaine possession conditionally dismissed by the state of New Hampshire. The felony charge was linked to police finding cocaine in one of Chung's houses in Meredith, NH when they entered his home due to a security alarm being tripped. The veteran safety has had the charges dropped on the condition that he performs 40 hours of community service, takes a periodic drug test, keeps a clean criminal record for two years, and waives his rights to a speedy trial and/or indictment in the event that he doesn't adhere to any of the aforementioned conditions.

But while Chung has seemingly dodged jail time, that doesn't mean he is completely out of the weeds. Because he is an NFL player, he is still vulnerable to being penalized by the NFL.

Though he did not face any penalties administered for a felony, Chung is still facing a penalty, albeit a small one, for having the cocaine in his household, and seemingly in his possession. Because of that, it will not be surprising if NFL commissioner Roger Goodell steps in and penalizes Chung in some way.

But what would the penalty be? The answer is not simple given the situation Chung was involved in and the lack of consistency the NFL commissioner has shown in penalizing players.

The first thing that needs to be figured out is if Chung will argue in court whether the officers had probable cause to search his house, which ultimately led to them finding the cocaine. He could also argue that the cocaine was not his. SI's own legal expert, Michael McCann explained the case Chung could make in court if he wanted to fight the charges:

"Under the Fourth Amendment’s protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, the police generally cannot enter a person’s home without a warrant. There are a variety of circumstances, however, where the police are allowed to enter a person’s home without a warrant. One is when a home alarm goes off and there is reason to believe burglary or other crimes may have been committed. If no one is home to tell the police it’s a false alarm, officers might enter the property.

"Chung might argue that even if officers lawfully entered the home, they lacked probable cause to search it in the manner which led to the cocaine’s discovery. If the “search” included aggressively looking through items in the house, Chung might insist such aggressive probing was unwarranted—and thus lacked probable cause—to simply assess whether a burglary occurred. However, if officers saw the drugs in plain sight, they would have probable cause to explore charges against persons connected to the home.

"Chung could also argue that it was not his cocaine. If officers found the cocaine in the house but not on Chung himself, prosecutors will argue there was “constructive possession.” Constructive possession is different from actual possession. Constructive possession refers to when the defendant doesn’t physically possess drugs but, because of where the drugs were found and the defendant’s control over that area, the defendant is considered legally responsible. Drugs found in someone’s car or home are two traditional examples of constructive possession. Notably, the indictment mentions Chung was charged for “having in his possession or under his control” (emphasis added).

"In an opinion authored by future U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter back in 1990, the New Hampshire Supreme Court held that constructive possession of cocaine in a home is found when the defendant has a “demonstrated legal authority to regulate the activities within” the home. For Chung to avoid a finding of constructive possession, he might argue the cocaine belonged to another person who stayed at the house or that that it was found in an area of the home which another person generally controlled."

The outcome of this argument, if it is made by Chung (because there is a good chance he could be okay with the conditional settlement) could determine what the NFL decides to dish out for a penalty on the Patriots' safety. But the league will likely perform their own investigation on the matter as well.

Whether or not a player is convicted of a crime, the NFL can step in and choose to suspend/fine them however they choose. Since this is Chung's first run-in with the law since entering the NFL, one would think Chung would face a one-game suspension or a fine, at the most. But only time will tell what kind of penalty, if any, will be administered too Chung.