Cited by

Actual possession involves “direct physical control.” (quotation omitted).

Actual possession is defined as “direct physical control.” State v. Barker , (quotation omitted).

Actual possession is defined as “direct physical control.” (quotation omitted).

“ A c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n , a l s o r e f e r r ed to as physical possession, involves ‘direct physical control.’” State v. Barker , (quoting Jacobson v. Aetna Cas.

“Actual posses sion, also referred to as physical possession, involves ‘direct physical control.’” State v. Barker , d 348, 353 (Minn. App. 2016) (quoting Jacobson v. Aetna Cas.

Actual possession involves “dire ct physical control.” (quoting Jacobson v. Aetna Cas.

The state asserts that this case is only about actual possession, which this court defines as “direct physical control.” State v. Barker , (quotation omitted).

1(1), the prosecution “may appeal a dismissal for lack of probable cause only if the dismissal is based on questions of law.” -53 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted).

“Actual possession, also referred to as physical possession, involves ‘direct physical control.’” State v. Barker , d 348, 353 (Minn. App. 2016) (quoting Jacobson v. Aetna Cas.

“When the state appeals a pre- trial order, we will only reverse if the state clearly and unequivocally shows (1) that the ruling was erroneous and (2) that the order will have a critical impact on its ability to prosecute the case.” (quotation omitted).

“Actual possession, also referred to as physical possession, involves ‘direct physical control.’” State v. Barker , d 348, 353 (Minn. App. 2016) (quoting Jacobson v. Aetna Cas.

“The mere fact that an item is not in a defendant’s physical possession at the time of appr ehension does not preclude prosecution for actual possession of contraband.”

However, “[t]he mere fact that an item is not in a defendant’s physical possession at the time of apprehension does not preclude prose cution for actual possession.”

State v. Barker , (Minn .

State v. Peck , , 770 n.1 (Minn. 2009) ; see State v. Barker , , 354 (Minn. App. 2016) (indicating that probable cause may be based on circumstantial evidence).

However, this court has held that “[t]he mere fact that an item is not in a defendant ’s physical possession at the time of apprehension does not preclude prosecution for actual possession.”

(reversing district court’s order dismissing charges for lack of probable cause).

Establishing constructive possession requires either “proof that the item was in a place under the defendant’s exclusive control to which other people did not normally have access” or “proof of a strong probability that the defendant was at the 7 time consciously exercising dominion and control over it, even if the item was in a place to which others had access.” -54 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotations omitted).

1(1), the prosecution “may appeal a dismissal for lack of probable cause only if the dismissal is based on questions of law.” State v. Barker , -53 (Minn. App. 2016) (quotation omitted).

“Possession may either be actual or constructive.”

The state responds to Bemboom’s .

“Possession may be either actual or constructive.”

However, this court has previously clarified that “[t]he mere fact that an item is not in a defendant’s physical possession at the time of apprehension does not preclude prosecution for actual possession.”

State v. Barker , (quotation omitted); review denied (Minn. Jan.

“Actual possession, also referred to as physical possession, involves direct physical control.” (quotation omitted).

See id.; (“Actual possession, also referred to as physical posse ssion, involves direct physical control.” (quotation omitted)); State v. 6 Florine, 303 Minn. 103, 105, (“ [I]n order to prove constructive possession the stat e should have to show (a) that the police found t