Police, armed with a valid warrant, search Dana's apartment while she is at work. In a locked closet inside Dana's bedroom they find a bag containing cocaine. The key to the closet is on Dana's keyring. Dana later admits that she knew the drugs were there and that only she had the key. Which of the following best states Dana's potential criminal liability for possession of the cocaine?
She is automatically guilty of possession whenever contraband is found anywhere in her residence, regardless of her knowledge or control.
She can be convicted if the prosecution proves she knew the cocaine was there and had exclusive dominion and control over it, even though she never physically handled it.
Her liability depends solely on whether she owns (rather than rents) the apartment where the drugs were found.
She cannot be convicted because she was not present and physically holding the drugs when police arrived.
Dana can be convicted under the doctrine of constructive possession. Although she did not physically hold the cocaine during the search, the prosecution can prove (1) her knowledge of its presence and (2) her exclusive ability to exercise dominion and control over the drugs by virtue of possessing the only key to the locked closet. Mere proximity alone would be insufficient, but knowledge plus the power and intent to control satisfies the possession element. The other options misstate the law: physical handling is unnecessary, proximity by itself is insufficient, and ownership of the entire apartment is not required.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is constructive possession?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What constitutes knowledge in terms of possession?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Can someone be charged with possession based on their proximity to illegal items?