The record will not support that assertion either, for the few facts that were developed at the hearing tended to negate any inference that she had knowledge of the nature of the establishment she was in, see Jones v. United States, 271 A.2d 559, 560 (D.C.App. 1970), or that she was chargeable with such knowledge by reason of the obviousness of the situation. See Cook v. United States, 272 A.2d 444, 446 (D.C.App. 1971). The record is deficient in these respects because the trial judge focused exclusively on whether the search preceded a formal arrest.
See also Bernard, 575 A.2d at 1195 ("mere proximity to an illegal item is not enough"; apartment); Jefferson v. United States, 558 A.2d 298, 303 (D.C. 1989); Curry, 520 A.2d at 263 ("mere proximity to an illegal item does not of itself prove knowledge coupled with dominion or control"; apartment); Wheeler, 494 A.2d at 172 ("Mere proximity to an illegal substance will be insufficient to uphold a conviction on a theory of constructive possession when an individual is one of several people found by authorities together with the substance"; hotel room). See also Cook v. United States, 272 A.2d 444, 447 (D.C. 1971) (inference that visitor-appellant constructively possessed contraband "strained" when "tenant or lessee of the apartment was present at the time of the raid"). Thus, for example, in In re T.M., 577 A.2d 1149 (D.C. 1990), we reversed the adjudications of delinquency for possession of a firearm and ammunition in a case in which the appellants were found in a bedroom "roughly equidistant from the contraband" when the police arrived.
Similarly, in this case, the evidence indicated that appellant was nothing more than a visitor in someone's residence where contraband was discovered. See Cook v. United States, 272 A.2d 444, 447 (D.C. 1971) (concluding that presence of tenant and others strains inference that non-tenant appellant possessed contraband found within apartment). The government contends, however, that by giving a false name to the arresting officers appellant "[attempted] to conceal his involvement in this drug distribution group."
Mere proximity to an illegal substance will be insufficient to uphold a conviction on a theory of constructive possession when an individual is one of several people found by the authorities on the premises together with the substance. Cook v. United States, 272 A.2d 444, 447 (D.C. 1971) (conviction for possession of narcotics paraphernalia reversed where the government did not show appellant to be a resident of the premises and the actual tenant and other occupants were also present on the scene at the time of the raid); United States v. Holland, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 225, 227, 445 F.2d 701, 703 (1971) (conviction for possession of heroin reversed where drugs were found in codefendant's apartment, and although appellant was present when drugs were found the government did not show that he was residing there); see United States v. Pardo, 204 U.S.App.D.C. 263, 277, 636 F.2d 535, 549 (1980) (conviction for possession with intent to distribute narcotics reversed where appellant was merely present while a drug transaction was consummated between other individuals); United States v. Watkins, 171 U.S.App.D.C. 158, 162, 519 F.2d 294, 298 (1975) (conviction for possession of narcotics reversed even though police found appellant and narcotics in the same room, where two other indiv
For the foregoing reasons we hold that, in the instant case, the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the nonexistence of a license. The other substantive points raised by appellants have previously been dealt with by this court and we adhere to those precedents: (1) D.C. Code 1967, § 22-1515(a) is not unconstitutional, United States v. McClough, D.C. App., 263 A.2d 48 (1970), and (2) paraphernalia in plain view supports inference of knowledge of illegal activity, Wells v. United States, D.C. App., 281 A.2d 226 (1971); Cook v. United States, D.C. App., 272 A.2d 444 (1971). Affirmed.
A useable quantity of heroin was found along with narcotics paraphernalia, some of which were still in plain view after the officers entered. See Cook v. United States, D.C.App., 272 A.2d 444 (1971). The fact that some narcotics and paraphernalia were found under the couch suggests that they may have been placed there hurriedly upon the arrival of the police.