R.D.D., JR., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a juvenile delinquency adjudication for cocaine possession, holding that the State proved constructive possession where cocaine was found in the back seat area exclusively controlled by the appellant, a rear-seat passenger in a vehicle.
The State proved constructive possession because the cocaine was located in the back seat, an area in the exclusive control of appellant. The issue of how the cocaine came to be in that area was for the trier of fact to decide.
[1] The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knew the contraband was within his presence, and knew of the…
[2] The combination of an item being in plain view and within a defendant's proximity is generally insufficient to establish the control element of constructive possession.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knew the contraband was within his presence, and knew of the illicit nature of the contraband.”
Establishes the three-element test for proving constructive possession under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficer Narayan stopped a vehicle with three occupants on August 30, 2008. Appellant was seated in the right rear seat. During a search, police found …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Knowledge Of Contraband cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant challenges a final order of delinquency for the charges of possession of cocaine and paraphernalia. He asserts that the State failed to prove constructive *858possession of the cocaine and drug paraphernalia found in a jointly occupied vehicle. We determine that the State proved that appellant had constructive possession of the contraband, and affirm.
Appellant was a passenger in the back seat of a car stopped by Officer Narayan of the Gainesville Police Department on August 30, 2008. Two other individuals were in the vehicle, both in the front seat. Upon searching the vehicle, the police found a small (1.5" x 1.5") clear plastic bag in plain view on the left hand side of the rear seat. Appellant was in the right hand rear seat. Narayan said the bag was within appellant’s reach. It was later established that the bag contained cocaine.
Narayan gave Miranda warnings to all three occupants of the car, and they spoke to him. Narayan could not remember their exact words, but he claimed all three of them knew “there was cocaine in the car, just no one would claim it.”
On cross-examination, Narayan explained that it was getting dark that night and, due to the tint on the car windows, he could not see anything that was going on in the car before the stop. Narayan also admitted he could not see whether one of the other passengers had tossed the bag into the back seat before the door was opened.
In a constructive possession case, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that “the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knew the contraband was within his presence, and knew of the illicit nature of the contraband.” Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983). Knowledge is not at issue in this case. A number of cases have made the broad statement that the combination of an item being in plain view and within a defendant’s proximity is insufficient to establish the control element of constructive possession. See, e.g., Taylor v. State, 319 So.2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Johnson v. State, 456 So.2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). All of these cases, however, can be distinguished on their facts from the instant case. Many of the cases involve defendants that were neither owners nor occupants of the premises or areas in which more than one person had access to where the drugs were found. See, e.g., Taylor, 319 So.2d 114 (proximity to marijuana in plain view was insufficient to establish constructive possession where defendant neither owned or occupied premises); Johnson v. State, 456 So.2d 923 (several people were in an apartment not owned or occupied by the defendant).
In State v. Williams, 742 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), however, we-found that evidence that drugs were in an area of a car that was in the exclusive possession of a defendant was sufficient to satisfy the control element of constructive possession. In the instant case, there is direct evidence of control; the cocaine was in the back seat, an area that was in the exclusive control of appellant. Appellant argues that the State failed to prove that one of the other occupants of the vehicle had not tossed the cocaine into the back seat when the car was stopped by police. The issue of how the cocaine ended up in an area exclusively in defendant’s control, however, was for the trier of fact to decide.
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 175 So. 3d 900 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…und in plain view, but the defendant, who was a visitor, had no control over the jointly' occupied premises). This court has found that the same principle applies to contraband located in plain view in jointly occupied vehicles. See R.D.D. v. State, 15 So. 3d 857, 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). In R.D.D., law enforcement conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle that contained three occupants, including the defendant, who was sitting alone on the right hand side of the back seat. Id. During a search of the vehicle, a…
-
State v. Robinson, 27 So. 3d 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)…ave reason [*140] to believe that the passenger knew of the presence of contraband under the driver’s seat and not visible to a person in the passenger’s location. This case is more similar to the First District Court’s decision in R.D.D. v. State, 15 So. 3d 857, 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). There, law enforcement officers stopped a vehicle and found drugs in a clear plastic bag in plain view on the left side of the rear seat. R.D.D. was in the right hand rear seat. The court found that the evidence of exclusiv…
-
State v. Upshaw, 251 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…o leave the vehicle. This Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that the defendant was in possession of the drugs and to arrest him for it. Robinson, 27 So. 3d at 140 ; see also R.D.D., Jr. v. State, 15 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding arrest lawful where drugs in clear plastic bag in plain view on left side of rear seat while defendant was in right hand rear seat was sufficient to prove constructive possession). We conclude that the officers had prob…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- State v. Williams, 742 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Westley Johnson v. State, 456 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Cent. & S. Fla. Flood Control Dist. v. Deadwyler, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Odessa D. Taylor v. State, 319 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)