Question for lawyers or people who are familiar with the law?

My brother is being charged with possession of marijuana but the police did not find the marijuana on him. They found it in his cousin's girlfriends purse. The police searched the house with a warrant but they were looking for an ak-47. You cannot find an ak-47 in a purse by the way. Can he be charged for the possession of marijuana that was not found on him?
There are not sufficient facts here to answer the question. Does the prosecution agree it was found in the purse, or do they have a different version? Or, if they have the same version, do the police claim that he PUT the mj in the purse? Do the police claim that he was possessing it jointly with the girl? In either of these cases he could be convicted even if it was found in somebody else's purse.

Did the warrant authorize searching for identifying information, as well as the weapon? Most warrants do. Was it reasonable to look in the purse for identification? It could have been, under the circumstances. Was there any other kind of search authorized by the warrant?

At this point, given the lack of information, I would suggest your brother listen to his lawyer rather than people who will answer a question like this without knowing all the facts.
uhh ya but nothing would happen. BUt if he was in a car then they could charge in of driving while impaired
No, get him a lawyer. Was it his apartment? Doesn't really matter the court will recognize the purse did not belong to him and what the heck were they looking in her purse? Did they cite probable cause? A judge will throw that out. Don't take a deal unless it is one to walk.
He can be charged but the evidence and marijuana can be thrown out quite easily.


Answer:
Of course, but it would be ludicrous to do so. If it ever came to trial, the defense could move for dismissal.
From these facts, I would say a 'not guilty' plea oughta do it. There is no case. I'm going to guess that he is being pointed to as the owner of the pot.
try this site www.expertlaw.com
It depends...in a search of the house especially in looking for weapons the police are allowed to detain people and search their person and everything within their reach of control to prevent them from using a weapon against a police officer...it is one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement

So while an AK-47 cannot be inside a purse...if the woman was holding the purse or it was within a reasonable reach that she could grab a gun from it...then it can be searched. Once searched anything inside is fair game....this is assuming the purse was on her...it may have not been....only the people there know.

And then from there to be able to charge your brother if that was the only marijuana found...they had to have reason to believe he possessed it or was part of the plan to possess it...under 2 grams would usually not be enough for distribution charges without proof of a plan to distribute. She must have said it was his or he somehow tried to protect her saying it was his.

Either way assuming the facts I stated above are true he could be charged....convicting him would be another story but the drugs would probably be admissable....it is up to the state to convince the jury they were his or in part his.
No. This whole process is flawed. They had a search warrant for an AK-47 and looked in a purse!! This should be dismissed by the Court with a motion that states the police went beyond the scope of the warrant. I don't know what else to say about the marijuana--I mean, you can't be charged with possession of something you do not possess.