## Facts

- Spirit Lake police executed a search warrant at an apartment occupied by Patricia Bash, her husband Kevin, and their three sons.
- Kevin was arrested on an outstanding warrant and removed from the residence shortly after officers entered.
- An officer testified that, after the warrant was read, Patricia said she could show him “where the stuff is,” and after receiving Miranda warnings, led him to the master bedroom.
- The officer testified Patricia indicated marijuana was “on his nightstand in a cardboard box,” described it as “Kevin’s stuff,” and mentioned a bong near the bed.
- Patricia testified she merely told officers that if anything was present it would be on Kevin’s side of the bed, pointing to his nightstand.
- Officers found 1.37 grams of marijuana in a cardboard box on Kevin’s nightstand.
- Patricia testified she did not know marijuana was in the box at the time of the search, though she knew marijuana had been kept in that box in the past.
- At trial, Patricia acknowledged she could physically have flushed the marijuana, but claimed she had no right to do so because the box and contents belonged to Kevin.
- A jury convicted Patricia of possession of marijuana; the court of appeals affirmed; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported Patricia Bash’s conviction for possession of marijuana where the marijuana was found in her husband’s box on his nightstand and the State relied on her statements, proximity, and physical ability to dispose of it to prove constructive possession.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision.
- The court reversed the district court judgment of conviction.
- The court remanded with directions to dismiss the charge.
- The court held the evidence was insufficient to prove constructive possession because the State did not show Bash had a proprietary interest in the marijuana or an immediate right to control it.

## Legal Principles

- Constructive possession of a controlled substance requires some proprietary interest in the contraband or an immediate right to control or reduce it to actual possession.
- In shared-occupancy settings, presence in the residence and proximity to contraband are insufficient without additional evidence linking the defendant to dominion and control over the specific drugs.
- “Raw physical ability” to access or dispose of contraband does not establish constructive possession; the State must show something more than physical capacity.
- A defendant’s past awareness that contraband had been kept in a location does not, without more, establish present knowledge and dominion over contraband found there at a later time.

## Conclusion

Because the marijuana was located in a container associated with Bash’s husband and the State proved, at most, physical access and proximity rather than a proprietary interest or immediate right to control the drugs, the Iowa Supreme Court found the evidence insufficient and ordered the charge dismissed.


State v. Bash, 670 N.W.2d 135 (Iowa 2003)