Rangel v. State

The majority correctly characterizes this ease as a joint possession situation where Mr. Rangel’s mere proximity to the contraband would be insufficient to establish constructive possession of the drugs. See Watson, 961 So.2d at 1117. However, in addition to the drugs being located on the floorboard of the seat that Mr. Rangel had been occupying — “directly between [Ran-gel’s] legs” — Sergeant Sheffield testified that Mr. Rangel bent forward toward the floorboard where the drugs were located and described Mr. Rangel’s movements as “furtive” and as though he was “trying to conceal something.”…