North Florida’s Highest Court: Juvenile Was In Constructive Possession of Drugs Found In Back Seat

December 4, 2025 Don Pumphrey, Jr. Criminal Defense, Drug Charges, Juvenile Offenses Social Share

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeal held that even though there were multiple other passengers in the vehicle, the substance was in plain view in an area over which the juvenile had exclusive control.

In Florida, someone may be arrested and charged with possession of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia even if this was not found in their actual possession (e.g. in their hands, pockets). If this occurs, the State must move forward on a theory of constructive possession.

Constructive possession can only be proven if the State provides independent evidence that:

• The defendant knew about the presence of contraband (such as drugs)
• Knew of its illicit nature (the fact that it was illegal), and; 
• Had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it. T.W. v. State, 666 So.2d 1001, 1002 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)

This cannot simply be inferred by law enforcement when premises, such as vehicles or homes, are jointly occupied (by more than one person). For someone to be found guilty of constructive possession on jointly occupied premises, independent proof must be provided in the form of one or more of the following (Thomas v. State, 269 So. 3d 681, 684 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)):

• Confessions by a defendant that the contraband belonged to them (e.g. “The drugs were mine…”)
• Statements by others on the premises claiming that the contraband belonged to the defendant (e.g. “The drugs were Joe’s, not mine…”)
• Scientific evidence linking the defendant definitively to the contraband, such as DNA and fingerprints

Important: Mere proximity (someone being physically near where contraband is discovered) is insufficient as a matter of law for the State to establish constructive possession. Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla. 1983)

In the absence of independent evidence, constructive possession on jointly occupied premises usually cannot be proven. As a result, the State will often fail to obtain a conviction if nobody makes a statement attributing the contraband to themselves or others on the premises. Moreover, depending on the facts of a case, a defendant may be entitled to dismissal as a matter of law.

One of the key exceptions to this rule is when the contraband (e.g. drugs, paraphernalia) is in plain view and within an area exclusively controlled by an occupant of the premises. Sims v. State, 285 So. 3d 1025, 1029 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). 

Although constructive possession typically cannot be inferred, some circumstances make this so “obvious” as to allow the State to prove constructive possession even without statements from others on the premises or scientific evidence (though this is quite rare). 

Considering this, let’s imagine a situation where the State can establish all of the following:

• Three passengers are found in a vehicle – one driving, one in front passenger’s seat, one in backseat
• Contraband (cocaine) is found on the other side of the backseat of the vehicle, within a defendant’s reach
• The contraband is in plain view (e.g. in a clear baggie)

Can the backseat passenger be found guilty on a theory of constructive possession, even if no passenger made statements as to who the cocaine belonged to and there is no scientific evidence (e.g. DNA) tying any of the passengers to the drugs?

The answer, according to Tallahassee and North Florida’s highest court, is yes. Let’s take a look at R.D.D. Jr. v. State, 15 So.3d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) and what it means for defending Florida constructive possession cases.

KEY CASE: R.D.D. Jr. v. State, 15 So.3d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) 

In R.D.D. Jr., the defendant (R.D.D. Jr.) was pulled over in a jointly occupied vehicle. R.D.D. Jr. was in the back right seat of the vehicle (directly behind the front passenger). In addition to the driver of the car, there was also someone seated on the passenger’s side (three passengers total).

The officer quickly saw a small, clear baggie of cocaine laying on the driver’s side backseat of the vehicle. He asked the occupants who the drugs belonged to after administering Miranda warnings, but nobody admitted to possessing it. Eventually, R.D.D. Jr. was arrested and charged.

At trial, the State proceeded on a theory of constructive possession. The officer conceded during his trial testimony that he could not see anything in the car before the stop due to the tint on the windows and time of night. Moreover, he testified that he could not rule out that someone threw the cocaine in the back seat before he got a chance to look inside the vehicle.

On this basis, R.D.D. Jr. argued at trial that constructive possession could not be proven. But the trial judge disagreed and adjudicated R.D.D. Jr. delinquent (finding a juvenile guilty) of cocaine possession. The judge found that the State had proven knowledge, dominion and control beyond a reasonable doubt – despite the officer’s admission.

R.D.D. Jr. appealed the adjudication of delinquency to Florida’s 1st DCA. He noted that the officer could not eliminate the possibility that the cocaine belonged to another passenger and was tossed into the back seat. Thus, the State’s case relied upon impermissible “inferences” that the drugs were actually his – without independent proof.

However, the 1st DCA disagreed and affirmed the adjudication of delinquency. It reasoned that despite the officer’s concession, everything required to prove constructive possession was shown by the State.

“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.’ … 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. … 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.”

Essentially, the 1st DCA held that although “plain view plus proximity” can sometimes be insufficient to establish constructive possession, R.D.D. Jr. was a current occupant of the premises (vehicle) where the drugs were in plain view. Analogizing R.D.D. Jr.’s case to another where the court found constructive possession, the 1st DCA concluded:

“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.”

Though the 1st DCA did not voice agreement (or disagreement) with the finding of the trial judge, it held that the State had enough evidence to send the issue to the trier of fact (the judge). R.D.D. Jr. was not shielded from being found delinquent as a matter of law.

In sum, R.D.D. Jr. v. State, 15 So.3d 85 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) is a significant development in Florida’s corpus of case law surrounding constructive possession. The 1st DCA held that in rare cases where no statements are made by joint occupants of a vehicle and no scientific evidence ties a defendant to contraband, they may still be found guilty of constructively possessing it.

However, this is the exception – not the rule. A finding of constructive possession on jointly occupied premises despite a lack of admissions or scientific evidence is limited to situations where:

• The contraband is in plain view (e.g. laying out openly on the seat, not concealed)
• The defendant is actively occupying the premises on/in which the contraband was found
• The contraband was found within the defendant’s immediate reach/in an area of the premises under their exclusive control at the time of discovery

Without all of these conditions being satisfied, the State must provide independent proof (e.g. confessions or scientific evidence) of possession. But if all of these are true in a case, the trier of fact is permitted to find a defendant guilty of constructive possession, even if the defendant has not made statements and is not scientifically tied to the contraband (e.g. through DNA).

If someone is concerned about a charge of possession of drug paraphernalia, it is crucial to find experienced and aggressive legal representation as soon as possible. This vital decision could make the difference in whether or not a person is subject to a lengthy prison term and hefty fines.

Criminal Defense Attorney in Tallahassee, FL

Don Pumphrey, Jr. is a Former Prosecutor, Former State Police Officer, Lifetime Member of the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; for over 25 years as a private defense attorney who is Trusted, Experienced, Aggressive in Criminal Defense as a Trial Attorney, Criminal Lawyer, Criminal Defense Lawyer for the accused in Florida State Courts located in Tallahassee, Florida but handling cases throughout the State of Florida.

Don Pumphrey, Jr. and the Tallahassee criminal defense lawyers at Pumphrey Law have decades of experience fighting drug charges on behalf of clients and winning. Call Pumphrey Law now at (850) 681-7777 to learn more about what we can do for you. Our lawyers will be happy to provide you with a free consultation.

  Social Share