In the case of Gizaw v. State the 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed the defendant's convictions for the charges of possession of a motor vehicle utilized for the purpose of trafficking, sale, and/or manufacturing of controlled substances; and possession of drug paraphernalia. The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions to discharge defendant based on the fact that the State of Florida didn't prove the defendant's knowledge of the presence of the cannabis or her dominion and control over the suitcase which contained cannabis.The evidence presented by the prosecution established that a sheriff's deputy pulled over an automobile for speeding. The defendant, who was the driver of the car, produced her driver's license. The passenger produced his identification & a records check showed he was on probation for drug convictions. The officer requested a backup unit and a second deputy responded. The first sheriff's deputy asked the defendant for consent to search the automobile for drugs. The officer informed the defendant he had information that the occupant was on probation for drug offenses. The defendant stated to the deputy there were no illegal drugs inside the automobile but gave him consent to search, which he did. He testified that he smelled a faint odor of raw marijuana that appeared to be residual, however did not locate any drugs.The second officer searched the trunk of the car, where he also smelled a slight smell of raw marijuana. As soon as he went into the trunk of the car, the smell became stronger and distinct. Within the trunk of the vehicle he discovered a suitcase which contained two bricks of marijuana wrapped in duct tape. The suitcase also contained 3 pairs of men's jeans. Lying next to the suitcase, the sheriff's deputy located additional clothing items and a box of sandwich bags. At the rear of the suitcase, he found school textbooks. No fingerprints were located on the suitcase or on the duct tape, and nothing belonging to defendant was found inside the suitcase.At some point during the encounter, the passenger admitted that he had given a fake identification, admitted his real name, and stated he was defendant's boyfriend. The driver and the passenger were both arrested for trafficking in cannabis and transported to the police station. The defendant was visibly upset and was crying, and the occupant wasn't.Some time after arriving at the police station, defendant provided a statement to police. Defendant insisted she didn't know regarding the cannabis in the suitcase. She said that she and the passenger were both getting back from Miami after having driven there earlier in the day in order to visit the passenger's grandmother. Defendant didn't know the passenger's grandmother's actual name or address, but she had the grandmother's telephone number on her cellular telephone. When the detective requested for permission to call the phone number, defendant refused.Upon her arrest, defendant had nine-hundred thirty-nine dollars in cash located on her person and the cash was loose and not bundled in the manner generally used by drug traffickers. The detective admitted that the defendant might have informed him that the cash was for tuition for her next semester at a local college. The passenger, who refused to talk with detectives, had six-hundred forty dollars in cash and a razor knife located on his person.The defendant testified that she was a 24year-old college student with plans to sign up for summer school. She explained the occupant was her boyfriend at the time of her arrest. The defendant testified that she traveled to Miami with the occupant in order to visit his grandmother. The defendant testified that she had never seen the black suitcase before her arrest. The suitcase wasn't in her car when they left for Miami, & she didn't open the trunk of the car while the couple were in Miami. When she & the occupant arrived in Miami they visited with her boyfriend's grandmother. The passenger had the keys in her possession at all times while they were in Miami.Defendant and the passenger left for home later in the evening. Defendant testified she didn't smell anything within the car. She stated that she didn't smoke cannabis and did not know what it smells like. Defendant did admit that she was exceeding the speed limit when the deputy stopped her and that she had consented to a search of the vehicle.Defendant explained that she knew the grandmother only as "Mama" and did not know her actual address. The occupant drove to his grandmother's house and defendant had not previously been there. Although the defendant had a telephone number for the grandmother, she didn't want to call at 4:00 a.m. to say that she had been arrested.The jury came back with a verdict of guilty on every charge. The trial court sentenced the defendant to forty-two months & three days in state prison which included a 3 year minimum mandatory on count 1. On count 2 , the court imposed a concurrent sentence of forty- two months and 3 days. The trial court sentenced the defendant to time served on count three.Defendant argued the circuit court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal being that state did not establish her constructive possession of the cannabis. She alleged that the state did not prove that defendant had knowledge regarding the presence of cannabis or that she had authority and control over the cannabis.Defendant also argued that the trial court erred in allowing the police officer & detectives to testify concerning patterns of behavior associated with drug trafficking. She asserted that such evidence on the subject of generalized patterns of criminal conduct presented as evidence of guilt is improper. Her final argument was that defendant should have been granted a new trial on account of newly-discovered evidence. The appellate court stated that its disposition of the matter on the constructive possession topic rendered the other two issues moot.The district court ruled that, to be able to establish the felony charges, the state of florida was required to show that the defendant knowingly possessed the marijuana. Because defendant was not in actual physical possession of marijuana, the state of florida was required to prove defendant's constructive possession of the suitcase. The state of florida had to prove that defendant knew of the presence of the suitcase & was able to exercise dominion and control over it. If the area where the drugs were found was in defendant's exclusive possession, knowledge & control could have been inferred. However, the defendant and the passenger were traveling in defendant's automobile, & the occupant had access to the trunk. The state of florida had to establish defendant's knowledge of the marijuana and dominion and control over it by independent proof.Following an analysis of comparable matters, the appellate court concluded that the state did not show independent proof of defendant's knowledge or dominion and control over cannabis located within the automobile. The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal.For more information on criminal lawyer miami, Dui Attorney Miami FL please contact us at: The Law Offices of Rosenberg and Dye 201 S Biscayne BlvdMiami, FL 33131(305)459-3286