drug transaction. When Wiley was stopped, he had a large amount of cash — more than $2,000, mainly in $20 bills. Wiley made furtive gestures when Robles initially approached him, turning away after spotting Robles, “like he was attempting to conceal or hide something he had just picked up.” Wiley was not under the influence of narcotics or in possession of narcotics when he was stopped. There was no odor of contraband, nor was there any drug paraphernalia present. Although Wiley did not make any facially incriminating statements, he denied having a car in the vicinity when his car was, in fact, less than a block away from where Robles stopped him. This denial could suggest some consciousness of guilt. Although the State did not introduce evidence that Wile rkana 1997, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). The logical force of the evidence linking
holding evidence was insufficient to link defendant to drugs in borrowed vehicle when the drugs were not in plain view the defendant disavowed knowledge that drugs were hidden in floorboard of car and a person antagonistic toward defendants husband had access to the car before she borrowed it holding that defendant who was a passenger in a car had joint constructive possession of drugs found next to the defendants luggage in truck of car even where she disclaimed ownership of the drugs holding that evidence was insufficient to prove a conspiracy where the evidence did not show that individuals who sold drugs to the defendant knew that the drugs were meant to be resold holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive possession of heroin when no drugs were found on his person and the only drugs discovered on the premises which he shared with the codefendant were secreted out of plain view holding that a defendant who had borrowed a car for a limited period of time had no legitimate expectation of privacy in the cars locked trunk where it was the very person from whom he had borrowed the car who first called the police after he failed to return the car