of the cocaine-laced dollar bill in an unconcealed location that was accessible to both Sorg and Ortega would cause a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that Ortega constructively possessed the cocaine jointly with Sorg. Sorg’s statements to Mills did not dispel this rational inference because her statements did not single out the guilty person. While Sorg admitted to using cocaine several days earlier, she denied knowing about the cocaine in the dollar bill. Our analysis is consistent with other courts that have considered whether the presence of unconcealed contraband in a motor vehicle provides an officer probable cause to arrest all the occupants of the motor vehicle. See, e.g., Perkins v. United States, 936 A.2d 303, 308 (D.C.2007) (<HOLDING>). Ortega argues that Mills did not list the
holding that the consent of the driver was invalid when the officer knew that the passenger was the owner of the automobile holding when a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile he may as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest search the passenger compartment of that automobile holding that visible contraband in plain view within the apartment provided probable cause for an arrest of person found therein holding that the defendants proximity as an automobile passenger to unconcealed contraband provided the officer probable cause to arrest the defendant absent other countervailing facts holding that belton permits the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile even when the defendant is arrested outside as long as the officer made initial contact while the defendant was inside the automobile