Court Opinion

ID: 9617358
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:54:27.299897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:08.688144
License: Public Domain

*495Davis, J.,
dissenting: I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court. I would further conclude that the trial court, in reviewing the decision of the magistrate to bind Bockert over for trial, applied the appropriate standard as set- forth in State v. Green, 237 Kan. 146, Syl. ¶ 1, 697 P.2d 1305 (1985).
The charges against Bockert of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, and failing to pay tax on marijuana, are all dependent upon establishing that he possessed the marijuana. At the preliminary hearing, the State would be required to present some evidence that Bockert possessed the marijuana found by the officers in the trunk of the car.
We have defined possession as having control over a place or thing with knowledge of and the intent to have such control. State v. Faulkner, 220 Kan. 153, 156, 551 P.2d 1247 (1976). Knowledge signifies awareness and is a requirement for “possession.” Knowledge of the presence of a dangerous drug, as embraced within the concept of physical control, with the intent to exercise such control is essential. State v. Flinchpaugh, 232 Kan. 831, 835, 659 P.2d 208 (1983).
Bockert was a passenger. He was not in control of the automobile. Even assuming he moved the trunk key within the interior of the automobile, it was the owner of the vehicle who consented to the search of the vehicle. It was the owner who had control over the vehicle. Handling the trunk key may have been a suspicious circumstance, but it falls short of establishing probable cause that Bockert possessed the marijuana. There was no evidence presented that the driver and passenger were involved in a conspiracy to deliver marijuana other than the fact that the passenger was present in the car for an extended trip with the driver. Nothing belonging to Bockert was found in the trunk, and Bockert had no previous record involving drugs. It would seem to me that association with the driver on the trip is the most incriminating evidence against Bockert. Under these circumstances, association with the driver provides no evidence that the passenger possessed the marijuana. I agree with the district court that while there may be suspicious circumstances, there is no probable cause that Bock*496ert possessed or conspired to possess marijuana with intent to sell.
Allegrucci, J., joins the foregoing dissent.