Opinion ID: 2206088
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Being the Owner or Recent Driver of a Vehicle in Which Drugs Are Discovered Creates a Rebuttable Presumption of Possession.

Text: Defendant contends that the district court utilized an unwarranted and impermissible presumption of his possession of the marijuana by reason of his ownership of the motor vehicle in which it was found. In its Conclusions of Law, the district court indicated that this court in State v. Atkinson, 620 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Iowa 2000), suggested that ownership or operation created a rebuttable presumption of possession. The district court further concluded that the defense offers no other credible evidence that would rebut the presumption of possession created by the defendant's ownership and operation of the Chevrolet. To the extent that the district court relied on such a rebuttable presumption to sustain its finding that defendant had knowledge of and control over the marijuana found in his motor vehicle this was error. Contrary to the district court's assertion, we did not suggest in Atkinson that ownership or operation of a vehicle in which drugs are discovered creates a rebuttable presumption of possession. The language from the opinion on which the district court relied was referring to the decisions of other courts and to legal treatises. The ownership of the vehicle was only one factor among several that we considered in determining whether the facts allowed a reasonable inference that the defendant in Atkinson knew of the drugs' presence and had control and dominion over them. See Atkinson, 620 N.W.2d at 4; see also State v. Cashen, 666 N.W.2d 566, 571 (Iowa 2003). In the present case, persons other than the defendant had access to his car. Courts from other states have given sound reasons for not allowing a rebuttable presumption of possession under such circumstances. See Hughes v. State, 215 Ga.App. 6, 449 S.E.2d 547 (1994); State v. Booth, 11 S.W.3d 887 (Mo.Ct.App.2000). Where immediate and exclusive possession of an automobile ... is shown, the inference is authorized that the owner of such property is the owner of what is contained therein, and this inference has been referred to as a rebuttable presumption. However, as to automobiles, the rule does not apply where there is evidence in the case that the defendant has not been in possession of the vehicle for a period of time prior to the discovery of the contraband or that others have had access to it.... Where it is established that other persons had equal access to the vehicle, the application of a presumption of possession of any contraband found in it is not a sound, abstract principle of law and is a dangerous rule for the numerous owners [or drivers] of motor vehicles. Hughes, 449 S.E.2d at 549 (citations omitted). Since our society recognizes the varied use of automobiles, the exclusive possession of premises rule has been modified when automobiles are involved because of the reality of the contemporary use of the automobile as a means of social accommodation.... In the case of automobiles the full effect of [the exclusive possession] rule is tempered by evidence of equal access by persons, other than the owner, to the vehicle. In cases where there is joint control, a defendant is still deemed to have possession and control where there is additional evidence connecting him with the controlled substance. Booth, 11 S.W.3d at 891 (citations omitted). Because it appears that the district court relied on an unwarranted presumption in reaching its finding of guilt in the present case, the defendant's judgment and sentence must be vacated. Defendant contends that absent the presumption the evidence is insufficient to sustain a finding of guilt, and a judgment of acquittal is in order. For reasons that are discussed in the following division, we disagree with that contention and conclude that the remedy to which he is entitled is a remand of the case to the district court for reconsideration of the evidence against him without applying the unwarranted presumption that was referred to in the court's initial decision.