In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia,
a court or other authority should consider, in addition to all other
logically relevant factors, the following:
| |
1.
|
Statements by an owner or by anyone in control of the object
concerning its use;
|
2.
|
Prior convictions, if any, of an owner, or of anyone in control
of the object, under any state or federal law relating to any controlled
substance or imitation controlled substance;
|
3.
|
The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct
violation of Sections 195.005 to 195.418, RSMo.;
|
4.
|
The proximity of the object to controlled substances or imitation
controlled substances;
|
5.
|
The existence of any residue of controlled substances or imitation
controlled substances on the object;
|
6.
|
Direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent of an owner,
or of anyone in control of the object, to deliver it to persons who
they know, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to
facilitate a violation of Sections 195.005 to 195.418, RSMo.; the
innocence of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, as to
direct violation of Sections 195.005 to 195.418, RSMo., shall not
prevent a finding that the object is intended for use, or designed
for use as drug paraphernalia;
|
7.
|
Instructions, oral or written, provided with the object concerning
its use;
|
8.
|
Descriptive materials accompanying the object which explain
or depict its use;
|
9.
|
National or local advertising concerning its use;
|
10.
|
The manner in which the object is displayed for sale;
|
11.
|
Whether the owner, or anyone in control of the object, is a
legitimate supplier of like or related items to the community, such
as a licensed distributor or dealer of tobacco products;
|
12.
|
Direct or circumstantial evidence of the ratio of sales of the
object to the total sales of the business enterprise;
|
13.
|
The existence and scope of legitimate uses for the object in
the community;
|
14.
|
Expert testimony concerning its use.
|