Being in a car where drugs are found can instantly put everyone inside under suspicion — even if the drugs aren’t yours. In North Carolina, prosecutors often rely on a concept called constructive possession to charge passengers or drivers with drug crimes when no one admits ownership.

But simply being near drugs is not enough to prove guilt. The state must show you had knowledge of the drugs and the ability to control them. Those two elements — knowledge and control — make all the difference in whether a possession charge sticks or gets dismissed.

Here’s what you need to know about constructive possession in North Carolina vehicle drug cases, and how proximity, proof, and passenger status affect your defense.

What Is “Constructive Possession”?

North Carolina recognizes two forms of drug possession:

Actual possession: You have the drugs on your person (in your pocket, hand, or bag).
Constructive possession: You don’t physically hold the drugs, but you know where they are and have the power and intent to control them.

Constructive possession is often used in vehicle cases, where drugs are found in a car but not directly on anyone. Prosecutors use it to argue that the driver or passengers still had control over the drugs, depending on where they were located.

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95(a)(3), possessing a controlled substance — whether actual or constructive — is illegal. But proving constructive possession requires more than proximity.

The State’s Burden of Proof

To convict someone of drug possession, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

The defendant knew the drugs were present, and
The defendant had the power and intent to control their use or disposition.

These two elements — knowledge and control — must be proven with specific evidence, not assumptions.

If the State fails to connect a defendant to the drugs through reliable evidence, a court can dismiss the charges for insufficient proof of possession.

Constructive Possession in Vehicle Cases

When drugs are found in a vehicle, prosecutors typically argue that everyone inside had access, but courts are cautious about such blanket claims. North Carolina courts have ruled that mere presence in a vehicle where drugs are found is not enough to prove possession.

Instead, the court looks at additional factors linking a person to the drugs, such as:

Location of the drugs: Were they within easy reach of the defendant (e.g., under the seat, in a door pocket, or center console)?
Ownership or control of the vehicle: Was the defendant the driver or owner?
Behavior during the stop: Did the defendant act nervous, attempt to hide something, or make incriminating statements?
Personal belongings: Were drugs found in an item tied to the defendant (a purse, backpack, or jacket)?
Fingerprints, DNA, or residue: Physical evidence connecting the defendant to the drugs.

Without these additional links, the State’s constructive possession argument often fails.

Passengers vs. Drivers: Who’s More at Risk?

Drivers face higher scrutiny because they control the vehicle and are presumed to know its contents. Courts often infer constructive possession for a driver when:

The vehicle is theirs or borrowed with permission.
The drugs are found in plain view or near the driver’s seat.
There’s other circumstantial evidence of awareness (odor, admission, or suspicious behavior).

Passengers, on the other hand, are not automatically responsible for drugs in the car. Prosecutors must show something more — like movement suggesting concealment, proximity to the drugs, or possession of drug paraphernalia.

Example:

If drugs are found under the passenger seat, but there’s no evidence of knowledge or control — no fingerprints, admissions, or suspicious behavior — a constructive possession charge is likely too weak to hold up in court.

When Constructive Possession Can Apply to Multiple People

In some cases, more than one person can be found in constructive possession of the same drugs. For example, if both the driver and a passenger share a close connection to the vehicle and the drugs are visible to both, the court may infer joint control.

However, shared proximity is not enough — the State must show each person’s intent and ability to control the drugs independently.

Key North Carolina Cases on Constructive Possession

Several North Carolina appellate decisions define how constructive possession applies in vehicle cases:

State v. Matias (2011): The court ruled that being a passenger near drugs wasn’t enough to prove possession without additional evidence linking the defendant to the drugs.
State v. Miller (1979): The driver was found in constructive possession because he owned the car and the drugs were in plain view.
State v. Alston (1995): The court emphasized that constructive possession requires both power and intent to control the drugs — not just physical proximity.

These cases show that constructive possession is highly fact-specific. Even small details — like where you were sitting or how you reacted — can influence the outcome.

How Prosecutors Try to Prove Knowledge

Because knowledge is hard to prove directly, prosecutors rely on circumstantial evidence, including:

Smell of marijuana or other drugs inside the car.
Inconsistent statements between passengers.
Nervousness, flight, or attempts to hide something.
Admissions or text messages suggesting drug use or ownership.

But courts have repeatedly ruled that these factors alone don’t prove constructive possession unless they clearly show awareness of the drugs’ presence.

Common Defense Strategies

Defending against constructive possession charges requires dismantling the prosecution’s claims of knowledge and control. Effective defenses include:

Mere Presence Defense
Argue that you were simply present in the vehicle and had no knowledge of the drugs. Courts consistently affirm that mere presence or proximity is not enough for conviction.
Lack of Knowledge
Show that you didn’t know the drugs were in the vehicle — for example, they belonged to another passenger, or you were unaware of their location.
No Evidence of Control
Point out that you had no authority over the vehicle or items where drugs were found (e.g., the car belonged to someone else).
Illegal Search or Seizure
Challenge the legality of the traffic stop or vehicle search. If the police violated Fourth Amendment rights, the evidence may be suppressed.
Cross-Contamination or Shared Spaces
If the drugs were in a shared area — such as a rental car or ride-share — argue there’s no unique link between you and the contraband.

Why These Cases Require Skilled Legal Representation

Constructive possession charges hinge on subtle facts — who was closest to the drugs, what you said, how police interpreted your behavior. A skilled North Carolina criminal defense attorney can:

Challenge weak circumstantial evidence.
File motions to suppress unlawfully obtained evidence.
Cross-examine officers about inconsistencies or assumptions.
Argue for dismissal when the State can’t prove knowledge or control.

Key Takeaway

In North Carolina, constructive possession in vehicle drug cases depends on more than just being near the drugs. Prosecutors must prove that you knew about the drugs and had the ability and intent to control them. Without those elements, a conviction cannot stand.

If you’ve been charged after a traffic stop involving drugs, the defense lawyers at Martine Law can help. We understand how prosecutors build constructive possession cases — and how to challenge every assumption.

Disclaimer: This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal guidance specific to your situation, please contact Martine Law.

Constructive Possession in Vehicle Drug Cases: Passengers, Proximity & Proof