State Of Washington, V Caitlin Allred, 48696-2

In Sept–Oct 2015 a confidential informant (C.S.) arranged buys with Caitlin Allred after receiving fake heroin; a subsequent arranged meeting occurred at a travel trailer Allred used as her home.
At the October meet, Allred took buy money from C.S., told her to leave, and officers arrested Allred at the trailer shortly thereafter.
Police searched the trailer (with consent and later warrant) and found methamphetamine residue in baggies in a drawer across from the bedroom, plus meth bongs and pipes.
Allred was charged with delivery of a material in lieu of a controlled substance and unlawful possession of methamphetamine; the jury convicted on both counts (acquitted of robbery).
At trial, Allred’s boyfriend, Jack Daniels, testified he owned the trailer and that Allred lived there and kept some belongings; Daniels later pleaded guilty to meth possession.
Allred appealed only the unlawful possession conviction, arguing insufficient evidence of dominion and control (constructive possession).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove constructive possession of methamphetamine	State: Allred lived in the trailer and thus had dominion and control over the premises and items found there	Allred: Proximity to drugs and presence in trailer only; State failed to prove dominion and control over the methamphetamine	Court: Affirmed — totality of evidence (testimony that trailer was Allred’s home, her presence in bedroom, drugs found in drawer across from bedroom) supports a reasonable inference of dominion and control

State v. Callahan, 77 Wn.2d 27 (Wash. 1969) (constructive possession requires proof of dominion/control; residence or personal effects on premises relevant)
State v. Cote, 123 Wn. App. 546 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (proximity and momentary contact with contraband insufficient to show dominion/control)
State v. Spruell, 57 Wn. App. 383 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990) (presence and fingerprint/proximity alone do not establish constructive possession)
State v. Jones, 146 Wn.2d 328 (Wash. 2002) (item is constructively possessed when it can be reduced to actual possession immediately)
State v. Reichert, 158 Wn. App. 374 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (dominion/control over premises creates rebuttable presumption of dominion/control over items on premises)