and “had the ability to exercise dominion and control over it.” Wagner v. State, 950 So.2d 511, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The fact that the car did not belong to him weighs against a finding of constructive possession. See Martoral v. State, 946 So.2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Harris v. State, 647 So.2d 206, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (citing Poitier v. State, 525 So.2d 472, 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)). And, as described above, the momentary possession by Mr. Ford does not equate to dominion and control. Thus, on the record before us, the evidence was insufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence requirement to find violations of community control conditions (5) and (7) based upon Mr. Ford’s possession of the marijuana discovered in the car. See Martoral, 946 So.2d at 1243 (<HOLDING>); Butera v. State, 58 So.3d 940, 942-43 (Fla.
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 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 that circumstance that contraband was found in a box bearing defendants name was sufficient to support an inference of knowledge and dominion and control holding evidence was insufficient to establish preponderance of evidence of appellants ability to control drugs where drugs found in compartment on back of passenger seat and appellant was sole backseat passenger holding evidence that marijuana was found in jointly occupied vehicle in open view was insufficient to establish defendants dominion and control by preponderance of evidence