A retired police officer faced charges of trafficking “cocaine” after buying coca tea online. The prosecution sought a mandatory minimum sentence of twelve years. After more than two years of proceedings and with specialized technical support, the court dismissed the trafficking charges and reduced the case to a misdemeanor related to a herbal infusion.
What began with the online purchase of a box of coca leaf tea ended up as a charge of cocaine trafficking, with a request for a mandatory minimum sentence of twelve years in prison. The protagonist: a retired police officer from the state of Massachusetts. The outcome: the court dismissed the trafficking charge and reduced the case to a misdemeanor of possession, with one year of probation and no criminal record.
For more than two years, the case proceeded under a strict interpretation of state law. The total weight of the seized tea bags exceeded the threshold for trafficking when the material contains even a minimal amount of the cocaine alkaloid. “Massachusetts law on coca tea or coca leaves is pretty scary,” the defendant explained during the proceedings. “If the tea or leaves even contains a minute amount of the cocaine alkaloid, then the entire amount of coca leaves or tea is counted towards the total weight of the drug.” That logic allowed a herbal infusion to trigger a charge intended for refined cocaine.
A disproportionate charge
The proceedings were not resolved quickly. What initially appeared to be a technical charge arising from an online purchase turned into a lengthy criminal trial, with court appearances, expert reports, and an indictment that was not withdrawn. For more than two years, the defendant remained under restrictive measures with a GPS device, subject to continuous monitoring as the case slowly progressed through the judicial system.
“I’ve been on a GPS bracelet for over two years for committing no crime,” he wrote before the trial, in one of the messages in which he tried to explain the accumulated strain. The length of the proceedings was not only a legal burden, but also a personal one: the constant uncertainty of a possible minimum mandatory sentence.
The prosecution requested the automatic application of twelve years in prison for trafficking more than 200 grams of “cocaine,” based on the total weight of the seized infusions. In the US criminal justice system, mandatory minimum sentences reduce judicial discretion and increase pressure on the accused to accept plea bargains.
In this case, the charge was upheld until the hearing in January. The trial did not revolve around the existence of refined cocaine or sales operations, but rather how a herbal infusion containing traces of the alkaloid should be legally interpreted. Only then, after more than two years of proceedings, did the court examine in depth the technical arguments and the nature of the seized product.
After hearing the arguments and examining the chemical report presented by the defense, the court ruled out the existence of cocaine as such and rejected the evidence of trafficking. “Everything turned out great,” the defendant said afterward. “I had a very easy going understanding judge who was a prior defence attorney. He paid very close attention to what turned out to be a very complex and now landmark case not only in the state of Massachusetts, but in the entire United States.”
The final outcome was far from the initial request: a misdemeanor for possession of a Class B substance in the form of an infusion, with the minimum penalty provided for by law.
The role of ICEERS
The turn of events did not happen by chance. During the trial, the defendant received specialized technical support through ICEERS’ legal defense program (formerly known as the Ayahuasca Defense Fund), which contributed an expert report and advice to scientifically contextualize the nature of the seized product.
“With our drug expert and your expertise and help with the case we carefully explained that there is a stipulation in the law that states decocanized coca leaves are 100% legal and worked that to our advantage,” wrote the retired police officer after the ruling. The distinction between plant leaves and isolated alkaloids proved decisive. So was the decision to pursue the litigation to trial, rather than accept a plea bargain under the pressure of a mandatory minimum sentence.
The protagonist sent a message of thanks directly to attorney Jesús Alonso Olamendi, head of ICEERS’ legal defense program, who accompanied him throughout the process. After learning of the verdict, he wrote: “Finally, a win for the good guys. You are one of the finest good guys I’ve ever had the pleasure to converse with and call a true friend that selflessly helped me with my case because you believed it was the just and right thing to do. Thank God for people like you!”
The defendant had described the proceedings as a “crazy somewhat scary complex case.” Faced with this prolonged experience and the threat of a mandatory minimum sentence, ICEERS’ technical support — along with the team’s close accompaniment — not only provided legal arguments, but also the confidence to sustain the defense until the end. In his words, that help made the difference between facing the process in isolation or doing so with specialized support in a high-stakes litigation.
Beyond an individual case
The coca leaf has been used traditionally for centuries in the Andean region, where it is chewed or prepared as an infusion. However, in certain US jurisdictions, the mere presence of the alkaloid can automatically trigger criminal categories designed for refined cocaine.
The ruling does not change state law. But it does set an important precedent in the judicial interpretation of cases in which herbal infusions containing traces of the alkaloid are classified as trafficking offenses.
In the end, “everything worked in favor for coca tea being exactly what it is: tea, infusions, 99.99% vegetable matter, not cocaine,” concluded the protagonist. For someone who faced the possibility of twelve years in prison for purchasing a box of tea, that difference was not a technicality. It was the difference between a disproportionate sentence and a ruling in line with the facts. And, in his own words, “a win for the good guys.”
