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.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| actual-possession/momentary-inspection-rejected | Momentary handling of bricks of cocaine during an incomplete reverse-sting inspection without authority to control them is not possession (United States v. Kitchen) | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 0 | No annotation uses in this snapshot |
| actual/admitted-ownership-of-drugs-hidden-in-own-car | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied | |
| actual/drugs-concealed-on-person | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/235/0565-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 — satisfied | |
| actual/momentary-handling-during-inspection-before-assent | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 — not | |
| actual/physically-loaded-boxes-of-drugs | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied | |
| constructive/dominion-over-premises-or-vehicle-holding-drugs | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 — satisfied | |
| constructive/driver-with-dominion-over-vehicle-holding-drugs | 1 Satisfied 1; not satisfied 0; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 — satisfied | |
| constructive/no-recognized-authority-over-sellers-drugs | 1 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 1; excluded context 0 | 1 | /f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 — not | |
| constructive/package-in-transit-with-common-carrier | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 1 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-3d/225/0274-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 — applied/procedural | |
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 4 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp-2d/427/0894-01 — United States District Court for the District of Minnesota · 2006 — background/merits; /f3d/20/0229-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 — applied/merits; /f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 — comparator/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp-2d/427/0894-01 — United States District Court for the District of Minnesota · 2006 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp-3d/225/0274-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016 | 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. | constructive/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. |
| /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 | 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 | constructive/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. |
| /f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983 | 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. | actual/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. |
| /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 | 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 | actual/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. |
| /f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986 | 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. | constructive/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. |
| /f3d/20/0229-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994 | 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 variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f3d/235/0565-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000 | 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. | actual/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. |
| /f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 | 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. | actual/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. |
| /f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995 | 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). | constructive/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. |
| /f3d/767/0453-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014 | Possession (actual, constructive, sole, or joint dominion and control) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts comparator / merits claim: (a)(1) | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /us/569/0184-01 — Supreme Court of the United States · 2013 | 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 variant | 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.
/f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
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.
/f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
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.
/f3d/57/0516-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1995
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.
/f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
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.
/f2d/701/1349-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
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.
/f2d/779/1098-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1986
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.”
/f-supp-3d/225/0274-01 — United States District Court for the District of New Jersey · 2016
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.