Bennett v. State, 46 So. 3d 1181

Bennett was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, possession of marijuana, and possession of paraphernalia based on circumstantial evidence of constructive possession.
Evidence included contraband found in plain view in the living room and in a closed box in the bedroom of a cottage where Bennett said he sometimes stayed.
Bennett was found inside a rear cottage; the main residence belonged to his grandmother, and the State did not prove who owned the rear dwelling.
A warrantless entry occurred after Bennett refused to come out; an officer forced entry following a broken window and conducted a search after Bennett gave consent.
The trial court denied a judgment of acquittal; the appellate court must assess whether sufficient circumstantial evidence proves constructive possession.
On appeal, the court concluded the State failed to prove Bennett had dominion and control over the contraband.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of constructive possession?	Bennett, as the possessor or user of the cottage, had dominion and knowledge.	No independent evidence tied Bennett to the drugs beyond proximity and plain view.	No; insufficient evidence of constructive possession.
Did plain-view contraband in the living room establish dominion and control?	Knowledge plus proximity supports possession.	Premises control lacking; Bennett was a visitor, not a resident.	No; plain-view presence alone does not prove dominion without premises control.
Was there independent evidence linking Bennett to the drugs found in the bedroom box?	Items near Bennett's belongings could indicate knowledge and control.	There is no evidence Bennett owned the cottage, and items could belong to others.	No; no independent evidence to prove constructive possession.
Was the warrantless entry into the cottage proper under the 901.19/Payton framework?	Pick-up order authorized warrantless entry for arrest.	Payton prohibits warrantless home entry for routine felony arrests absent exigent circumstances.	No; warrantless entry violated Payton principles; suppression issue moot due to lack of constructive possession.
Did Bennett have standing to challenge the entry?	State may raise standing on appeal.	Bennett lacked a clear expectation of privacy in the cottage.	Not reached as convictions reversed on sufficiency grounds.

Sundin v. State, 27 So.3d 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (constructive possession requires dominion and knowledge beyond mere proximity)
Jackson v. State, 995 So.2d 535 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (actual possession shown by possession of contraband or within defendant's control; infer dominion in proximity cases)
Evans v. State, 32 So.3d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (constructive possession defined; knowing presence and ability to control necessary)
Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla. 1983) (constructive possession requires knowledge and dominion over contraband)
Law v. State, 559 So.2d 187 (Fla. 1989) (reversal standard for circumstantial-evidence-based convictions; must exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence)
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (U.S. 1980) (warrantless home entry for routine felony arrests is generally unlawful absent exigent circumstances)
Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990) (recognizes Payton limitations on overnight guest entry; warrants required for home arrests absent exigency)
Stevens v. State, 552 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1989) (Florida's earlier stance on warrantless home arrests keyed to Payton framework)
Taylor v. State, 319 So.2d 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (proximity alone not enough to infer possession of contraband)