the view or otherwise within the knowledge of the defendant.” 11 Md.App. at 518, 275 A.2d 184 (emphasis supplied). By contrast, one of the factors running through cases holding evidence of joint constructive possession insufficient to convict is “the fact that the contraband was secreted away in a hidden place not shown to be within [the defendant’s] gaze or knowledge or in any way under his control.” Id. at 514, 275 A.2d 184 (emphasis supplied). This second Folk factor (the first being proximity) “concerns the [defendant’s] knowledge, through one sense or another, of the presence of the contraband.” Herbert v. State, 136 Md.App. 458, 466, 766 A.2d 190 (2001). Seeing something is one way of knowing of its presence. See e.g. Johnson v. State, 142 Md.App. 172, 199, 788 A.2d 678 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Line of sight or plain view evidence is not
holding that after making an arrest of the driver of a vehicle the police may search the passenger compartment of the vehicle holding that officers had probable cause to arrest driver and two passengers where cocaine and contraband were found in glove compartment and backseat armrest of vehicle and none of the men offered any information regarding the ownership of the drugs and contraband on the ground that the drugs and contraband could have been in the possession of any one of the three vehicle occupants or all three of them jointly 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 holding that it was inconceivable that the defendant a passenger in a vehicle did not know of the presence of contraband on the gearshift in his plain view and arms reach holding that where a qualified drug dog alerts to the presence of contraband in a vehicle officers have probable cause to search the vehicle