STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS BECKER, 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.
Florida reversed the dismissal of drug possession charges, holding that a defendant's affidavit denying physical possession and claiming others had access to his room was insufficient to negate constructive possession when cocaine and paraphernalia were found in his closet.
A defendant's affidavit denying physical possession and stating that other occupants had access to his room is insufficient to negate constructive possession when contraband is found in the defendant's own closet.
[1] A defendant's affidavit denying physical possession and alleging that other occupants had access to his room does not negate constructive possession of contraband found i…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOfficers executing a search warrant in a boarding house found cocaine and a Coca-Cola can fashioned into a pipe in the closet of a room rented and occ…
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 Drug Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We reverse an order dismissing charges, entered on the basis of defendant’s sworn motion made pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4), and the state’s demurrer. The facts are sketchy but undisputed. In the course of executing a search warrant in a boarding house, officers found cocaine and paraphernalia (a Coca-Cola can fashioned into a pipe used for “freebasing” cocaine). This contraband was found in the closet in a room rented and occupied solely by the defendant. The defendant’s affidavit stated that there were three other occupants of the house, each of whom rents a separate bedroom, but that each “has access” to the others’ rooms. The affidavit also stated that “[a]t no time did the [defendant have physical possession of the [C]oca-[C]ola can.”
These statements are insufficient to negate constructive possession. Cf. Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla.), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1209, 103 S.Ct. 3541, 77 L.Ed.2d 1391 (1983); Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 991 (Fla.1989). We find inapposite those circumstances in which a person charged with constructive possession is not the occupant. See Brooks v. State, 501 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). Here the contraband was in the defendant’s closet in his own room. Under such circumstances, knowledge may be inferred. E.g., Williams v. State.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
LETTS and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 428 So. 2d 250 (Fla. 1983)
- Strickland v. Roosevelt Cnty. Rural Elec. Coop., 463 U.S. 1209 (U.S. 1983)
- Sena v. United States, 463 U.S. 1209 (U.S. 1983)
- Epta Brooks and Daphne Mollisom v. State, 501 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)
- Williams v. State, 529 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)