Mere presence in a place where drugs are found is not enough to convict someone of possession. Therefore, that evidence does not establish possession. Defendant's statement is also not enough to prove possession of the drugs. When asked whether the police had found all the narcotics, or should dogs be brought in, Defendant told police they got it all. Knowledge of controlled substances alone is insufficient to sustain a conviction based on possession.
Control is also a necessary element.
Furthermore, an ambiguous statement in response to a compound question is not enough to inculpate a defendant. His statement is ambiguous, and the State admitted as much at oral arguments. Although the statement shows that Defendant knew the drugs were present, it does not demonstrate that the drugs were Defendant's or evince an intent to control the drugs. Because this evidence fails to prove control, the State fails to show constructive possession. Finally, we address the issue of the money found in Defendant's pocket.