Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 218A.510 (2026)

Factors to be considered in determining whether object is drug

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

paraphernalia. 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; (3) The proximity of the object, in time and space, to a direct violation of KRS 218A.500(2), (3) or (4); (4) The proximity of the object to controlled substances; (5) The existence of any residue of 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 whom he knows, or should reasonably know, intend to use the object to facilitate a violation of KRS 218A.500(2), (3) or (4); the innocence of an owner, or of anyone in control of the object, as to a direct violation of KRS 218A.500(2), (3) or (4) 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 and 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. Effective: July 15, 1982 History: Created 1982 Ky. Acts ch. 413, sec. 3, effective July 15, 1982.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2001–2010 · leading case: Hampton v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hampton v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2007). · cites it 4× “The presence of residue is merely one of a nonexclusive list of factors found in KRS 218A.510 to be considered in determining whether a given object is drug paraphernalia.”

Lexington Fayette Cnty. Food & Beverage Ass'n v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't, 131 S.W.3d 745 (Ky. 2004). · cites it 2× “500; KRS 218A.510. The Court agreed "that § 857(d) establishes objective standards for determining what constitutes drug paraphernalia," Posters `N' Things , supra at 511 U.”

State v. Mallard, 40 S.W.3d 473 (Tenn. 2001). “§ 65-4151 (1992); Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 218A.510 (Michie 1995); Me.”

Finn v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 89 (Ky. 2010). · cites it 2× “1415[ (1) ] and the use of the word ‘residue’ in KRS 218A.510(5) are to be defined in different manners.”

Harry Finn Jr v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2010). “14 KRS 218A.510(5) ("In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority should consider .”

— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 218A.510(5) — 3 cases

Hampton v. Commonwealth, 231 S.W.3d 740 (Ky. 2007). “The presence of residue is merely one of a nonexclusive list of factors found in KRS 218A.510 to be considered in determining whether a given object is drug paraphernalia.”

Finn v. Commonwealth, 313 S.W.3d 89 (Ky. 2010). “1415[ (1) ] and the use of the word ‘residue’ in KRS 218A.510(5) are to be defined in different manners.”

Harry Finn Jr v. Commonwealth of Kentucky (Ky. 2010). “14 KRS 218A.510(5) ("In determining whether an object is drug paraphernalia, a court or other authority should consider .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.