and took apart the choke assemblies of the M-l and J-8 wells. Appellees thus exercised “dominion and control ... for their own purposes” over property in which Auster enjoyed a possessory interest, and their behavior thus “clearly constituted a ‘seizure’ ” under Auster’s allegations. Jacobsen, — U.S. at- n. 18, 104 S.Ct. at 1660 n. 18. Auster also sufficiently alleged a search. Auster had a legal right to control the course over which it routed the transmission of oil and gas as part of its operational rights and responsibilities. Appel-lees point us to no law that compelled Aus-ter to direct the flow over a particular route or one that made deviation from such a route illegal and, hence, illegitimate for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See Jacobsen, — U.S. at -, 104 S.Ct. at 1662 (<HOLDING>). Thus, although Auster’s property rights do
holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance holding that illegality of cocaine possession rendered illegitimate any expectation that nature of substance would remain private after government lawfully obtained it holding that the government need not prove that the defendant actually knew the exact nature of the substance to establish mens rea knowledge of drugs illegality is sufficient holding that in prosecution for possession of a controlled substance cocaine possession of cutting reagents used to dilute cocaine and heroin was not other crimes evidence because possession of these substances is legal recognizing possession of cocaine as a lesserincluded offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell