over everything contained anywhere in it.” Leach, 296 Md. at 596, 463 A.2d 872. While executing a valid search warrant, the police found phencyclidine (PCP) in a closed container in a bedroom closet. The Court held that this evidence was insufficient to support the defendant’s conviction, because “fe]ven though [the defendant] had ready access to the apartment, it cannot be reasonably inferred that he exercised restraining or directing influence over PCP in a closed container on the bedroom dresser or over paraphernalia in the bedroom closet.” Id. (emphasis added) Taylor also discussed several decisions of this Court, but in none of these were the illegal substances out in the open or in the plain view of the accused. See, e.g., Tucker v. State, 19 Md.App. 39, 45, 308 A.2d 696 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Barksdale v. State, 15 Md.App. 469, 475, 291
holding that a visitor to a hotel room for purposes of distributing drugs failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room 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 the defendants allegations that his codefendant admitted that the defendant had no role in the robbery and that the codefendant had not testified on the defendants behalf because he had been coerced by the state were sufficient to state a prima facie claim of newly discovered evidence holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive pos session when the drugs that were discovered in a hotel room that he shared with a codefendant were secreted and out of plain view holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room rented by relatives when he had a key to the room and permission to use the room at will