"'[P]robable cause' to justify an arrest means facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing . . . that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit" the crime for which he is arrested. Dodd v. Commonwealth, 50 Va.App. 301, 307 (2007) (second alteration in original) (quoting Thomas v. Commonwealth, 38 Va.App. 49, 53 (2002)).

"'[P]robable cause' to justify an arrest means facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge that are sufficient to warrant a prudent person, or one of reasonable caution, in believing . . . that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit" the crime for which he is arrested. Dodd v. Commonwealth, 50 Va.App. 301, 307 (2007) (second alteration in original) (quoting Thomas v. Commonwealth, 38 Va.App. 49, 53 (2002)).

Moreover, there was no residue found on the defendants, nor a scent, nor anything similar from which to infer their involvement with the drugs in the glove compartment. The Commonwealth responded by citing Dodd v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 301, 649 S.E.2d 222 (2007), for the proposition that "a passenger . . . will often be engaged in common enterprise with the driver and have the same interest in concealing the fruits of evidence of their wrongdoing." This Court in Dodd, however, was reviewing a trial court's motion to suppress ruling to determine whether the officers had probable cause to arrest, a more lenient standard than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

"On appeal of the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the evidence adduced at both the suppression hearing and at trial. . . ." Dodd v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 301, 306, 649 S.E.2d 222, 224 (2007) (citing DePriest v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 577, 583, 359 S.E.2d 540, 542-43 (1987)).

Possession need not be exclusive and may be exercised jointly with more than one person. E.g., Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. at 372, 124 S.Ct. 795; State v. Copeland, 677 S.W.2d 471, 476 (Tenn.Crim. App. 1984); Armstrong v. State, 548 S.W.2d 334, 336-37 (Tenn.Crim.App. 1977); Perry v. State, 527 S.W.2d 749, 751 (Tenn. Crim.App. 1975); see also In re D.H., 285 Ga. 51, 673 S.E.2d 191, 192 (2009); State v. Beaver, 41 Kan.App.2d 124, 200 P.3d 490, 494 (2009); State v. Millsap, 244 S.W.3d 786, 788 (Mo.Ct.App. 2008); Hargrove v. State, 211 S.W.3d 379, 385 (Tex.App. 2006); Dodd v. Commonwealth, 50 Va.App. 301, 649 S.E.2d 222, 225 (2007). In order to prove simple possession of a controlled substance, the evidence must establish that the accused, either individually or jointly with another, exercised dominion and control over the controlled substance, had knowledge of the presence of the controlled substance, and had knowledge that the substance was, in fact, a controlled substance.

Pringle, 540 U.S. at 371 (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996)); see also Dodd v. Commonwealth, 50 Va.App. 301, 309 (2007).

Further, "'[o]n appeal of the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the evidence adduced at both the suppression hearing and at trial.'" Dodd v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 301, 306, 649 S.E.2d 222, 224 (2007) (quoting Ward v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 733, 742-43, 627 S.E.2d 520, 525 (2006)). This principle applies to a guilty plea no less than to a case tried upon a plea of not guilty.

Further, "[o]n appeal of the denial of a motion to suppress, we consider the evidence adduced at both the suppression hearing and at trial." Dodd v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 301, 306, 649 S.E.2d 222, 224 (2007) (quoting Ward v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 733, 742-43, 627 S.E.2d 520, 525 (2006)). 1. Knowing and Intelligent Waiver

"Furthermore, proof that a person is in close proximity to contraband is a relevant fact" that may also be taken into account by the factfinder. Id.; see also Dodd v. Commonwealth, 50 Va.App. 301, 308, 649 S.E.2d 222, 225 (2007). "While no single piece of evidence may be sufficient, the `combined force of many concurrent and related circumstances, each insufficient in itself, may lead a reasonable mind irresistibly to a conclusion.'"

The defendant's suspicious acts at the hotel were "suggestive of a drug transaction" in a high crime area that was under police surveillance. Dodd v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 301, 308, 649 S.E.2d 222, 225 (2007). The digital scale found in the center console and the gun found on the other passenger were both "tools of the trade" in illegal drug operations.