being searched, and he did not take steps to insure that contraband did not come into the correctional facility as a result of it being in his backpack. Thus, the trial court essentially found that M.A.F. was in constructive possession of the marijuana when entering the jail. Constructive possession exists when the accused, without physical possession of the controlled substance, knows of its presence and has the ability to maintain control over it. See Byers v. State, 17 So.3d 825, 827 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). While M.A.F.’s awareness that his backpack was coming into the facility tended to prove the element of knowledge of the presence of contraband, it did not establish that he had the ability to maintain control of it. See State v. Getzinger, 189 Or.App. 431, 76 P.3d 148, 149-50 (2003) (<HOLDING>). On the contrary, once the deputy placed
holding that trial judge was not authorized to impose jail time as condition of probation and deleting the 90 day jail penalty holding that evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession where the defendant was in jail at the time the drugs were seized from his residence holding that the defendant was entitled to counsel when the offense for which he was tried could result in the imposition of a jail sentence holding that the defendants possession of contraband in a jail was not the result of a voluntary act on his part because officers brought him into the jail under arrest holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of supplying contraband to a jail because the defendant was not in possession of the drugs when he was taken to jail where the arresting officer entered the jail with the drugs