presence is established. Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250, 252 (Fla.1983). However, the issue of control is not established by the fact that the contraband is in plain view unless the accused is an occupant or owner. Id. In the event the accused is a mere visitor in jointly possessed premises, then the State must establish control of contraband in plain view by independent evidence. Taylor v. State, 319 So.2d 114, 116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). As we stated previously, the State’s evidence established nothing more than that Sundin was a visitor of a resident of room 221. Without independent proof of Sundin’s control over the pipe, the State failed to establish his constructive possession of the cocaine or paraphernalia. See J.S.M. [v. State], 944 So.2d [1143] at 1144-45 [ (2d Cir.2006) ] (<HOLDING>); Wade v. State, 558 So.2d 107, 108 (Fla. 1st
holding that a hotel occupant who was asked to leave by police officers acting on behalf of hotel management who complained of defendants disorderly behavior was justifiably ejected under state law and no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room holding that the state failed to prove that a hotel visitor had control over marijuana found in plain view in a hotel room because the state did not provide any evidence other than the defendants mere proximity to the marijuana holding that a 7 excise tax based on the charge to the public for a hotel room applied to the price expedia demands from the consumer for the right to occupy the hotel room and not the price expedia agrees to pay the hotel for the room 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 that a hotel security guard was not liable under  1983 merely because he called police and brought the police to the plaintiffs hotel room