over the interi- or of the car, including the front passenger seat floorboard, any more than the presence of other occupants in Brown negated the defendant’s control over contraband found in his plain view in common areas of a house he owned and occupied. Brown and its progeny therefore dictate that sufficient evidence existed for the question of the driver’s dominion and control to be submitted to the jury. We acknowledge that a jury issue on a driver’s dominion and control over contraband may not be present under different circumstances. For example, the State may fail to present evidence inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence that a passenger had exclusive dominion and control over the contraband. See, e.g., Corker v. State, 31 So.3d 958, 960 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>). But this concern is generally not implicated
holding that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest defendant a rear seat passenger of a car for possession of marijuana based on the discovery of two marijuana seeds in the front of the vehicle holding that car passenger had legitimate expectation of privacy in his jacket found crumpled on the back seat of car holding the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the defendant a front seat passenger of a vehicle occupied by three individuals was in constructive possession of marijuana found in white bag directly under the defendants seat holding in a review of probation revocation that a male driver did not have dominion and control over marijuana in a multicolored makeup pouch concealed in the back seat of the car near where the female passenger in question was sitting holding that evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction of front seat passenger of possession with intent to distribute marijuana in paper bag in foot well of volkswagen on passengers side near gearshift in presence of marijuana smoke