AND · 21usc841:possession
Constructive possession requires power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (directly or through others); mere proximity, association, or unconsummated inspection prior to payment does not suffice.
Exact element source
or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispenseSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title21.jsonl#title21_sec841; Unicode character offsets [192:254] (end exclusive); SHA-256 ebaba73bf6e21a591f44bf851f24a052a5687813c505030cd9483e17753e9420.Routes and case patterns
| Route | Definition | Merits instance blocks | Distinct merits cases | Examples (up to 3 cases per count group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unclassified route provisional; 4 observed cases | no definition yet | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 4 | 0 | Used only in non-merits blocks (4). Excluded context examples:United States v. Person — 427 F. Supp. 2d 894 (2006) · United States District Court for the District of Minnesota · 2006 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · background/merits · not counted United States v. Vincent — 20 F.3d 229 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · not counted United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — not reached · basis not recorded (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · comparator/merits · not counted |
| actual provisional; 4 observed cases | Whether the defendant physically held or carried the drugs. | 4 Satisfied 3; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 4 | United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Prieto-Tejas — 779 F.2d 1098 (1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Hishaw — 235 F.3d 565 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted |
| constructive provisional; 12 observed cases | Whether the defendant had dominion and control over drugs not on his person, or over the place or person holding them. | 11 Satisfied 9; not satisfied 2; excluded context 2 | 10 | United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Prieto-Tejas — 779 F.2d 1098 (1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Griffin — 150 F.3d 778 (1998) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/merits · counted United States v. Tiangco — 225 F. Supp. 3d 274 (2016) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) · applied/procedural · not counted United States v. Mazzulla — 932 F.3d 1091 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) · applied/lower-court · not counted |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Person — 427 F. Supp. 2d 894 (2006) · United States District Court for the District of Minnesota · 2006 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A) Charged as aiding and abetting possession with intent to distribute crack (two dates); the opinion only reviews probable cause for two residential search warrants. Warrant affidavits recite a controlled buy of half a gram from a third person at the shared residence and an informant seeing packaged crack there; none of this is assessed against the offence elements. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Tiangco — 225 F. Supp. 3d 274 (2016) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: proved; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A); count: Count 2 (April 29, 2014 UPS shipment from Nevada to New Jersey); theory: constructive possession continuing in the forum district (second ground for venue, after the continuing-offence ground); subject: count=Count 2 (April 29, 2014 UPS shipment from Nevada to New Jersey); theory=constructive possession continuing in the forum district (second ground for venue, after the continuing-offence ground) The carrier is treated as the shipper's agent: the sender keeps constructive possession until actual delivery, and government interception/control of the parcel does not divest it (following Boney, 2d Cir.). Decided in order to place the possessory offence in the forum district for venue. | package-in-transit-with-common-carrier | The surveillance video, in color and of good quality, showed that Ms. Tiangco and a companion sealed and dropped off that package at the counter of the UPS store.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [18845:19007] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.In a text message dated April 30, 2014, Tiangco sent Freehauf the package’s UPS tracking number, 1C10598X0190432694.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [19032:19148] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.As the request of the federal agents, however, UPS detained the package at their distribution hub in Tinton Falls, New Jersey. The agents in New Jersey picked up the package from UPS.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [19484:19667] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.It also encompasses “constructive possession,” ie., “dominion and control” in the sense of “the ability to reduce an object to actual possession.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [22205:22351] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.Viewing the facts through the lens of Boney, I find that Ms. Tiangco retained dominion, control, and the ability to reduce the package to possession. She thus remained in constructive possession of the package while it was in New Jersey.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [28062:28299] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592. |
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Posada; subject: party=Posada | dominion-over-premises-or-vehicle-holding-drugs | Vera parked the van next to a shed located by the house. After a brief conversation, Vera, Posada and a third individual entered the shed.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [4780:4918] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Shortly thereafter, Posada drove the van to the same shopping center and left the van with Hassan.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [5394:5492] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Possession may be actual or constructive and may be proved by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [17301:17405] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.A person who owns or exercises dominion and control over a motor vehicle or residence in which contraband is concealed may be deemed to be in constructive possession of the contraband.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [17604:17788] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, it is clear that a reasonable jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Posada knowingly participated in the conspiracy and knowingly possessed and distributed the quaaludes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [23921:24168] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Vera; subject: party=Vera The contested point was identity/continuity: whether the boxes Vera handled were the boxes later seized (van was out of full view at Romero's house). Matching box size plus a co-conspirator's remark about picking up "stuff" at a "warehouse" sufficed. | physically-loaded-boxes-of-drugs | The first two boxes which Vera and Posa-da loaded into the van were approximately three feet in width and one and a half feet in height and were substantially larger than the other boxes placed in the van by Vera and Posada.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [20087:20311] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Inside the van, the agents found two large boxes which were approximately the same size as the two large boxes placed in the van by Vera and Posada and eight smaller boxes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [6425:6597] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.All ten of the boxes found inside the van contained quaaludes.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [21651:21713] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Although it is conceivable that some of the boxes loaded into the van by Vera and Posada may have been unpacked or unloaded at Romero’s house, such a possibility does not rise to the level of a reasonable doubt in light of the totality of the evidence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [21714:21966] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed. |
| United States v. Prieto-Tejas — 779 F.2d 1098 (1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); party: Dusal (co-defendant, not an appellant); count: 846 conspiracy count (his possession is found as a step in the conspiracy analysis; no 841 conviction of his is under review); subject: party=Dusal (co-defendant, not an appellant); count=846 conspiracy count (his possession is found as a step in the conspiracy analysis; no 841 conviction of his is under review) Driver of another man's car, who knew of the cocaine hidden in it, constructively and jointly possesses it. | driver-with-dominion-over-vehicle-holding-drugs | Both men were aware of the large amount of cocaine that they carried on the trip.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [12216:12297] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.Possession of a narcotic may be actual or constructive, may be joint with others, and may be proved by circumstantial evidence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [12298:12425] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.Dusal may be deemed to have been in constructive possession of the cocaine, which he knew of, because such possession may be proved when one “has dominion over or controls the premises or vehicle where contraband is seized.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [12489:12713] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2. |
| United States v. Prieto-Tejas — 779 F.2d 1098 (1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md)) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1); party: Prieto-Tejas; subject: party=Prieto-Tejas | admitted-ownership-of-drugs-hidden-in-own-car | Dusal was driving a 1978 Oldsmobile and Prieto-Tejas, who owned the automobile, was riding in the front passenger seat.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [802:921] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.When questioned at the checkpoint, Prieto-Tejas told Nichols that the cocaine belonged to him, but denied knowledge of the gun.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [2869:2996] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.Prieto-Tejas admitted knowing possession of all the cocaine found in his car, but claimed that it was for his personal consumption and that the evidence failed to establish his intent to distribute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [5653:5851] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2. |
| United States v. Griffin — 150 F.3d 778 (1998) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) Driver was sole occupant of his own vehicle when stopped, with the box of cocaine in the rear cargo space that police had watched being loaded earlier. Dominion over the vehicle was not disputed; the appeal attacked only the "knowing" half of knowing possession. | sole-occupant-of-own-vehicle-holding-cargo-box | When Griffin pulled over after exiting the expressway without direction from the police officers, he was the only person in the Yukon.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0778-01; Unicode character offsets [20572:20706] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c12bcba9bd82c213622c83568cb4d96b4026be74acb6bbc0a0083f4083d2318d.The officers found a large, tan box in the middle of the rear cargo space which they had seen the Hispanic male place in Griffin’s Yukon earlier in the day.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0778-01; Unicode character offsets [7512:7668] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c12bcba9bd82c213622c83568cb4d96b4026be74acb6bbc0a0083f4083d2318d.Detective Bobko testified that he watched the Yukon for the remainder of that day, observing that no one else had access to Griffin’s vehicle.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0778-01; Unicode character offsets [20429:20571] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c12bcba9bd82c213622c83568cb4d96b4026be74acb6bbc0a0083f4083d2318d.During the bench trial and from reviewing the record, we are convinced that the trial court weighed the evidence, made credibility determinations, and found that Griffin was guilty of possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute beyond a reasonable doubt.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0778-01; Unicode character offsets [22442:22704] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c12bcba9bd82c213622c83568cb4d96b4026be74acb6bbc0a0083f4083d2318d. |
| United States v. Quintanar — 150 F.3d 902 (1998) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1998 — not · no-evidence (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1) Conviction reversed for insufficiency of evidence: where a mailed package was addressed to a third party and turned over to police before defendant could assert control or reduce it to actual possession, defendant had at most intent or hope to gain possession, which does not constitute constructive possession. | intercepted-delivery-before-defendant-exerted-control | Neither Quintanar’s name nor his address was on the box. He never touched it or handled it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0902-01; Unicode character offsets [6112:6203] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8660efadd6fa9dcf4539515752f4b0ebe3fc8238977002fcbcca3aa1d0996a8b.But before Quintanar could assert dominion or control of the package it was physically removed from the possession of Macias and taken to the police station.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0902-01; Unicode character offsets [8746:8903] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8660efadd6fa9dcf4539515752f4b0ebe3fc8238977002fcbcca3aa1d0996a8b.Quintanar then told her that there were drugs in the box, “[he] asked me just to give — just to turn the box over to him, not to destroy him.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0902-01; Unicode character offsets [5011:5153] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8660efadd6fa9dcf4539515752f4b0ebe3fc8238977002fcbcca3aa1d0996a8b.Connett was not acting on his behalf but at the direction of Hoffman.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0902-01; Unicode character offsets [8613:8682] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8660efadd6fa9dcf4539515752f4b0ebe3fc8238977002fcbcca3aa1d0996a8b.The government’s case straightforwardly rests upon constructive possession. Therefore, for the jury to find Quintanar guilty, the government was required to prove that Quintanar intended to exercise dominion over the methamphetamine, that he had the power to exercise dominion, and that he.knew he had the power to exercise dominion.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0902-01; Unicode character offsets [7649:7982] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8660efadd6fa9dcf4539515752f4b0ebe3fc8238977002fcbcca3aa1d0996a8b.“[T]he essence of constructive possession is not direct, physical control, but the ability to reduce an object to actual possession; otherwise, constructive possession would have no meaning at all- It is enough if one person is sufficiently associated with another having physical possession that he is able to produce a controlled substance for a customer.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0902-01; Unicode character offsets [10565:10923] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8660efadd6fa9dcf4539515752f4b0ebe3fc8238977002fcbcca3aa1d0996a8b.The government’s evidence fell short of proving beyond reasonable doubt that Quintanar had the power to exercise control or dominion over the drugs at any given time.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_150.jsonl#/f3d/150/0902-01; Unicode character offsets [8141:8307] (end exclusive); SHA-256 8660efadd6fa9dcf4539515752f4b0ebe3fc8238977002fcbcca3aa1d0996a8b. |
| United States v. Lazcano-Villalobos — 175 F.3d 838 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) In a jointly occupied vehicle with a hidden compartment, circumstantial nexus (shaking hand, lack of luggage, air fresheners masking scent, dustless dash indicating recent concealment, $2,300 cash courier fee) proved driver's constructive possession. | driver-hidden-compartment-joint-occupancy-nexus | On examination of the car’s interior, border patrol agents discovered a hidden compartment which could not be seen without taking the dash apart.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [2024:2169] (end exclusive); SHA-256 705ae18823815868add1d2ac7b39bfffb0da1c0a7caf210a46cfee8dbcbe0001.Direct and circumstantial evidence shows Mr. Lazcano-Villalobos used the late model Ford containing the drugs from December 30, 1996 until his arrest on February 1, 1997.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [13432:13602] (end exclusive); SHA-256 705ae18823815868add1d2ac7b39bfffb0da1c0a7caf210a46cfee8dbcbe0001.Thus, Mr. Lazcano-Villalobos’ joint occupancy of the vehicle with his wife is not sufficient in this case to establish an inference of constructive possession.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [12395:12554] (end exclusive); SHA-256 705ae18823815868add1d2ac7b39bfffb0da1c0a7caf210a46cfee8dbcbe0001.A person constructively possesses contraband when he or she knowingly holds ownership, dominion or control over the object and premises where it is found.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [11746:11900] (end exclusive); SHA-256 705ae18823815868add1d2ac7b39bfffb0da1c0a7caf210a46cfee8dbcbe0001.To prove constructive possession where there is joint occupancy, the government must present direct or circumstantial evidence to show some connection or nexus individually linking Mr. Lazeano-Villalobos to the contraband.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [12555:12777] (end exclusive); SHA-256 705ae18823815868add1d2ac7b39bfffb0da1c0a7caf210a46cfee8dbcbe0001.Thus, we find the evidence was substantial and sufficient to support Mr. Lazcano-Villalobos’ conviction for knowingly possessing the contraband.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/0838-01; Unicode character offsets [16059:16203] (end exclusive); SHA-256 705ae18823815868add1d2ac7b39bfffb0da1c0a7caf210a46cfee8dbcbe0001. |
| United States v. Jenkins — 175 F.3d 1208 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); count: Possession with intent to distribute cocaine base; subject: count=Possession with intent to distribute cocaine base Key to residence in pocket, mail at address, regular overnight stays, marked buy money in nightstand, and surveillance of defendant walking visitors toward the backyard stash hole established constructive possession of cocaine base, despite third-party access to the yard. | backyard-stash-hole-and-nightstand-stash | Further, on the day of the search, officers discovered a single key in Defendant’s coat pocket which fit the front door lock of Ms. Payne’s residence. Officers also discovered mail addressed to Defendant at Ms. Payne’s address.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [20355:20582] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8.They also found a plastic bag containing crack cocaine in a hole covered with a piece of particle board in the middle of the backyard of the residence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [3053:3204] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8.Further, a marked twenty-dollar bill used by the informant to purchase cocaine base from Defendant was found with approximately $3,000 in cash and some cocaine base in a night stand next to the bed in which Defendant was lying when officers executed the warrant.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [21553:21815] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8.There is a four-foot fence .surrounding the backyard of the residence, and a fraternity house is located directly behind the fence.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [3205:3336] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8.“Constructive possession occurs when a person ‘knowingly has ownership, dominion or control over the narcotics and the premises where the narcotics are found.’ ”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [18913:19074] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8.We conclude that the evidence establishes a sufficient nexus between Defendant and the cocaine base for a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant constructively possessed the cocaine base with intent to distribute it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [22096:22331] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8. |
| United States v. Jenkins — 175 F.3d 1208 (1999) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1999 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1); count: Possession with intent to distribute marijuana; subject: count=Possession with intent to distribute marijuana Dominion over the residence and the bedroom containing marijuana and cash supported constructive possession of marijuana, although the co-defendant claimed some of it as hers. | marijuana-throughout-bedroom-where-defendant-found | In a night stand next to the bed, officers found marijuana, approximately $8,000 in cash which included a marked twenty-dollar bill used by a police informant to purchase cocaine base from Defendant, and two clear bags containing crack cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [2044:2288] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8.For example, officers discovered marijuana throughout the room where Defendant was found, including in the night stand where they located the $3,000 in cash, the marked twenty-dollar bill, and some cocaine base.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [23508:23719] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8.Further, although Ms. Payne testified that some of the marijuana found in the residence was hers, she stated that not all of it was.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [24600:24732] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8.The evidence also shows a sufficient nexus between Defendant and the marijuana for the jury to conclude that he constructively possessed it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_175.jsonl#/f3d/175/1208-01; Unicode character offsets [23367:23507] (end exclusive); SHA-256 be157a8f1cee3b5329a7d7b0bd0c99dcbde82f86a2379b654c059d9c5b407ed8. |
| United States v. Vincent — 20 F.3d 229 (1994) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D) Marijuana was seized in the defendant's own home; possession itself not disputed. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Hishaw — 235 F.3d 565 (2000) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(A),(b)(1)(B) Admitted at trial and not contested on appeal; no rule or held sentence exists in the opinion. | drugs-concealed-on-person | Sergeant Alvarado felt two hard objects in Mr. Hish-aw’s crotch and asked him for permission to retrieve them. Mr. Hishaw agreed, and Sergeant Alvarado discovered what he believed to be several large rocks of crack cocaine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [3980:4203] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3.He further admitted that he had possessed crack cocaine on July 10, 1998.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_235.jsonl#/f3d/235/0565-01; Unicode character offsets [7145:7218] (end exclusive); SHA-256 e39d6753bdf3d76861b3d1be40c57e6ef42ba592e6631a22b0ebfaf8386122f3. |
| United States v. Kitchen — 57 F.3d 516 (1995) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 — not · no-evidence (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed; 21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); theory: actual possession (holding a kilogram for 2-3 seconds); subject: theory=actual possession (holding a kilogram for 2-3 seconds) Sufficiency reversed: physical holding alone is not actual possession where the buyer in a reverse sting has neither paid nor assented; conduct was that of a prospective buyer inspecting goods. Court says payment, verbal assent, or acts consistent with carrying the drugs away would change the result. | momentary-handling-during-inspection-before-assent | Kitchen showed Casali the money and then handed it to his coconspirator, Dow-dell. Casali admitted that at no point did either Kitchen or Dowdell offer Griffin or him the money or attempt to hand the money over.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [16249:16460] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.The government suggests that Kitchen picked up one of the kilograms of cocaine for “two or three seconds.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [3454:3560] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.All agree that Kitchen made a comment expressing concern about the drug’s purity — that he was worried about “slabs” (apparently one of the most desirable forms of cocaine). At that point, Casali and Fernandez placed Kitchen under arrest.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [3561:3799] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.Casali admitted that Kitchen never stated that he would complete the transaction or made a similar affirmative comment to that effect.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [17055:17189] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.And here, the essential proof of possession that we require is some factor indicating that Kitchen had the authority or the ability to exercise control over the contraband.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [20652:20824] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.In most cases of actual possession, because the defendant physically holds or carries the narcotics, his control over them is presumed. But to state that control is presumed is not to suggest that actual possession can be established when it is completely absent.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [21556:21819] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.Although Kitchen held the cocaine in his hand, he did not yet have a recognized authority to exert control over it.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [22766:22881] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.Instead, Kitchen’s momentary holding was in the context of inspection, not delivery.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [20044:20128] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5. |
| United States v. Kitchen — 57 F.3d 516 (1995) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 — not · no-evidence (18usc922: author: Fable · not independently reviewed; 21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | not Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: no-evidence; claim: (a)(1); theory: constructive possession (intent to purchase + cash in hand); subject: theory=constructive possession (intent to purchase + cash in hand) Intent to buy (negotiations, prior dealing, arriving with $14,000) shows at most attempted possession; the court notes the case "fits more neatly into an attempt paradigm" (the jury had rejected attempt). | no-recognized-authority-over-sellers-drugs | After further negotiations, Kitchen agreed to purchase two kilograms of cocaine from Griffin.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [1801:1894] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.Instead, Kitchen left the money with Dowdell and proceeded to another location with Casali to examine the drugs.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [16470:16582] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.The constructive possession cases teach that a defendant must have ultimate control over the drugs. This requirement translates into the right, or the recognized authority within the “criminal milieu,” to possess the drugs in question.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [21871:22106] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.Kitchen’s intent to purchase, without more, is insufficient to establish possession because it overlooks the required element of dominion or control.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [24433:24582] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.We believe that although Kitchen held the drugs for a moment, he neither controlled them nor had recognized authority over them.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [26670:26798] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5. |
| United States v. Orozco — 700 F.3d 1176 (2012) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2012 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A)(iii),(b)(1)(B)(ii) Status as one of two drivers of the commercial truck, log-book discrepancies and flight during the search supported constructive possession of contraband hidden behind a light cover; the argument that only the other driver possessed it was for the jury, which rejected it. | co-driver-of-commercial-truck-hidden-compartment-behind-light-cover | Orozco and another driver were driving a commercial truck with an empty flatbed trailer through Missouri.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_700.jsonl#/f3d/700/1176-01; Unicode character offsets [1280:1385] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1ed81bd08c0093a17b515cc116baeade283f512a2591b1c8bd38b0e53e86d221.When searching the vehicle, the trooper noticed stripped screws on a light cover, removed the screws, and discovered concealed bundles.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_700.jsonl#/f3d/700/1176-01; Unicode character offsets [2355:2490] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1ed81bd08c0093a17b515cc116baeade283f512a2591b1c8bd38b0e53e86d221.When Orozco was in a sleeping berth and the other driver was operating the vehicle, a commercial vehicle officer (“officer”) stopped the truck.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_700.jsonl#/f3d/700/1176-01; Unicode character offsets [1386:1529] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1ed81bd08c0093a17b515cc116baeade283f512a2591b1c8bd38b0e53e86d221.“[PJresenee in a vehicle containing contraband ... and other evidence can give rise to an inference of control.”Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_700.jsonl#/f3d/700/1176-01; Unicode character offsets [6864:6976] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1ed81bd08c0093a17b515cc116baeade283f512a2591b1c8bd38b0e53e86d221.Further, Orozco’s log book discrepancies, his flight from the scene, and the simple fact that he was a driver of the vehicle, taken together, are more than sufficient to support the verdict.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_700.jsonl#/f3d/700/1176-01; Unicode character offsets [6657:6847] (end exclusive); SHA-256 1ed81bd08c0093a17b515cc116baeade283f512a2591b1c8bd38b0e53e86d221. |
| United States v. Teran-Salas — 767 F.3d 453 (2014) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1) | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| United States v. Solis — 915 F.3d 1172 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A) Sufficiency upheld: the drugs were in the children's car seats of defendant's own vehicle on the return leg of a drug-buying trip she joined; the court found the nexus (knowledge plus access/control) that mere joint occupancy lacks. | drugs-hidden-in-childrens-car-seats-in-defendants-vehicle | Using the cordless drill and the Phillips bit, he disassembled the car seats and found $19,000 in rubber-banded cash and 2.5 kilograms of methamphetamine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/1172-01; Unicode character offsets [3022:3176] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6728c81148db0694782b8aad773a56b2cf5cfbdc284dbfb893aec52d848ffcf5.Using one of Solis's vehicles, Pedraza drove Solis and two of her children to Dallas, Texas, on July 17, 2015, where he planned on purchasing ten kilograms of methamphetamine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/1172-01; Unicode character offsets [1837:2012] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6728c81148db0694782b8aad773a56b2cf5cfbdc284dbfb893aec52d848ffcf5.Solis consented to a search of the vehicle.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/1172-01; Unicode character offsets [2806:2849] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6728c81148db0694782b8aad773a56b2cf5cfbdc284dbfb893aec52d848ffcf5.The government may prove knowing possession by showing constructive possession-that is, that Solis had both knowledge of and control over the contraband.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/1172-01; Unicode character offsets [5675:5828] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6728c81148db0694782b8aad773a56b2cf5cfbdc284dbfb893aec52d848ffcf5.Mere presence or physical proximity alone cannot support such a finding. There must be "some nexus between a defendant and the contraband."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/1172-01; Unicode character offsets [5893:6032] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6728c81148db0694782b8aad773a56b2cf5cfbdc284dbfb893aec52d848ffcf5.Accordingly, a reasonable jury could find that Solis had knowledge of and control over the methamphetamine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_915.jsonl#/f3d/915/1172-01; Unicode character offsets [6663:6770] (end exclusive); SHA-256 6728c81148db0694782b8aad773a56b2cf5cfbdc284dbfb893aec52d848ffcf5. |
| U.S. v. Druger — 920 F.3d 567 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · conceded (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: conceded; claim: (a)(1) Possession of the 36.02 grams found in the plumbing of his residence was conceded on appeal (he claimed it was for personal use). | drugs-in-toilet-and-plumbing-of-defendants-home | During a sweep of the house officers discovered 36.02 grams of methamphetamine inside the toilet and related plumbing.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0567-01; Unicode character offsets [1248:1366] (end exclusive); SHA-256 38cc9acd87f1fb554f2c5aa14b5fb88e7ef1dc80558174bb22343b49e075c9ed.Thus, Druger concedes the element of possession but challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he intended to distribute.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_920.jsonl#/f3d/920/0567-01; Unicode character offsets [7771:7901] (end exclusive); SHA-256 38cc9acd87f1fb554f2c5aa14b5fb88e7ef1dc80558174bb22343b49e075c9ed. |
| United States v. Mazzulla — 932 F.3d 1091 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · proved (21usc841: author: Flash2 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md); 21usc846: author: Astra4 · not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | satisfied Excluded from merits counts applied / lower-court basis: proved; claim: (a)(1) & (b)(1)(A),(b)(1)(B) Jury finding only: possession was not separately contested or analysed on appeal (the conviction was affirmed by the global sufficiency sentence). Drugs were in the camper defendant had just stepped out of and, later, under the hood of a co-defendant's van in the garage where he lived. | residence-camper-and-vehicle-storage | The officers ordered the people to come out, and Mazzulla and a woman (later identified as Rhonda Meador) stepped out.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/1091-01; Unicode character offsets [4239:4357] (end exclusive); SHA-256 134fb3d6293d60034b50e328b2f8bc6338c96fa98b9411a4bc86a8b0b50fded8.The officers searched the motor home and found approximately 49 grams of methamphetamine, a pistol, and some drug paraphernalia.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/1091-01; Unicode character offsets [4358:4486] (end exclusive); SHA-256 134fb3d6293d60034b50e328b2f8bc6338c96fa98b9411a4bc86a8b0b50fded8.The search of the Folsom St. garage was done in the early morning of April 22 and resulted in seizure of 210 grams of methamphetamine found under the hood of Burke's green van parked in the garage.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_932.jsonl#/f3d/932/1091-01; Unicode character offsets [5514:5711] (end exclusive); SHA-256 134fb3d6293d60034b50e328b2f8bc6338c96fa98b9411a4bc86a8b0b50fded8. |
| Moncrieffe v. Holder — 569 U.S. 184 (2013) · Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 — not reached (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1),(b)(1)(D),(b)(4) Subsumed in the categorical match above; not separately analysed. | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
And here, the essential proof of possession that we require is some factor indicating that Kitchen had the authority or the ability to exercise control over the contraband.
United States v. Kitchen — 57 F.3d 516 (1995) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
And here, the essential proof of possession that we require is some factor indicating that Kitchen had the authority or the ability to exercise control over the contraband.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [20652:20824] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.Constructive possession requires power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (directly or through others); mere proximity, association, or unconsummated inspection prior to payment does not suffice.
interpretation
The constructive possession cases teach that a defendant must have ultimate control over the drugs. This requirement translates into the right, or the recognized authority within the “criminal milieu,” to possess the drugs in question.
United States v. Kitchen — 57 F.3d 516 (1995) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
The constructive possession cases teach that a defendant must have ultimate control over the drugs. This requirement translates into the right, or the recognized authority within the “criminal milieu,” to possess the drugs in question.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [21871:22106] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.Constructive possession requires power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (directly or through others); mere proximity, association, or unconsummated inspection prior to payment does not suffice.
interpretation
Kitchen’s intent to purchase, without more, is insufficient to establish possession because it overlooks the required element of dominion or control.
United States v. Kitchen — 57 F.3d 516 (1995) · United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-QA1.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
Kitchen’s intent to purchase, without more, is insufficient to establish possession because it overlooks the required element of dominion or control.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_57.jsonl#/f3d/57/0516-01; Unicode character offsets [24433:24582] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a7a3d46a84cc2303b7c7dbcb7479d9ff89a79dde3020c53fd81a6149a8c41cb5.Constructive possession requires power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (directly or through others); mere proximity, association, or unconsummated inspection prior to payment does not suffice.
interpretation
Possession may be actual or constructive and may be proved by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.
United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
Possession may be actual or constructive and may be proved by circumstantial as well as direct evidence.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [17301:17405] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Constructive possession requires power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (directly or through others); mere proximity, association, or unconsummated inspection prior to payment does not suffice.
interpretation
A person who owns or exercises dominion and control over a motor vehicle or residence in which contraband is concealed may be deemed to be in constructive possession of the contraband.
United States v. Vera — 701 F.2d 1349 (1983) · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 (21usc841: author: Fable · not independently reviewed)
A person who owns or exercises dominion and control over a motor vehicle or residence in which contraband is concealed may be deemed to be in constructive possession of the contraband.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_701.jsonl#/f2d/701/1349-01; Unicode character offsets [17604:17788] (end exclusive); SHA-256 06c4eb390b9d5107032af6ab238d0a354dab17499cbb12fe72ac63a7ff8ec7ed.Constructive possession requires power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (directly or through others); mere proximity, association, or unconsummated inspection prior to payment does not suffice.
interpretation
Possession of a narcotic may be actual or constructive, may be joint with others, and may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
United States v. Prieto-Tejas — 779 F.2d 1098 (1986) · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 (21usc841: author: Fable · QA: PASS (QA1, neov2/qa/cases-v1-QA1.md))
Possession of a narcotic may be actual or constructive, may be joint with others, and may be proved by circumstantial evidence.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f2d_779.jsonl#/f2d/779/1098-01; Unicode character offsets [12298:12425] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3f39a24d0e7fd74f68caa830c5b43b98bd09511d85522b3dfc3c1703468bc7f2.Constructive possession requires power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (directly or through others); mere proximity, association, or unconsummated inspection prior to payment does not suffice.
interpretation
It also encompasses “constructive possession,” ie., “dominion and control” in the sense of “the ability to reduce an object to actual possession.”
United States v. Tiangco — 225 F. Supp. 3d 274 (2016) · United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 (21usc841: author: Fable · historical QA: FIX (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
It also encompasses “constructive possession,” ie., “dominion and control” in the sense of “the ability to reduce an object to actual possession.”Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_225.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01; Unicode character offsets [22205:22351] (end exclusive); SHA-256 7c9b8effe79b40465d8f54b688db37727be6b83430d03638ebb585ba402cc592.Constructive possession requires power and intention to exercise dominion and control over the contraband (directly or through others); mere proximity, association, or unconsummated inspection prior to payment does not suffice.