was sparsely furnished and was without electricity. This evidence, in the expert opinion of Officer Trogdon, indicated that the house was being used as a base for a drag operation in which the appellants played a role. Therefore, despite the lack of proof that appellants had a proprietary or possessory interest in the house, the evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to conclude that appellants exercised joint and constructive possession of the cocaine. Id. at 134-35, 578 A.2d 283 (emphasis added). See also Suddith, 379 Md. at 443, 842 A.2d 716 (finding the evidence sufficient to sustain the passenger’s convictions for possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia found “strewn throughout” the inside of a stolen vehicle); In re Ondrel M., 173 Md.App. 223, 236, 918 A.2d 543 (2007) (<HOLDING>); Larocca v. State, 164 Md.App. 460, 482, 883
holding that search of area under front passenger seat of a validly stopped vehicle was justified for officer safety holding the evidence insufficient to support a finding that the defendant a front seat passenger in a car owned by the driver possessed cocaine recovered from inside a box of pots and pans in the trunk of the vehicle 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 the evidence sufficient to support a finding that the juvenile a front seat passenger of a vehicle occupied by four persons was in possession of marijuana recovered from a crumpled piece of newspaper behind the drivers seat 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