Just because drugs are found in someone’s car does not mean the driver “possessed” the drugs. The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed this principle in the recent case of R. v. Lincoln.
Lincoln’s rental car was stopped by the police. The police found a substantial amount of cocaine under the steering column of the vehicle and $800 in his wallet. The trial judge convicted Lincoln of (a) possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and (b) possession of proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction, stating:
This line of reasoning constituted an error in law, in our view. It in effect applied a presumption that, because Mr. Lincoln was the operator of the vehicle at the time, he is deemed to have knowledge and control of its contents, unless there is evidence to the contrary. No rebuttable presumption of knowledge and control for purposes of determining possession, based solely on the fact that a person is the operator with control of the vehicle, exists at common law or under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19. To give effect to such a premise would constitute an impermissible transfer of the Crown’s burden of proof to the accused. While the fact that a person is the operator with control of the vehicle, together with other evidence, may enable a trial judge to infer knowledge and control in appropriate cases, it cannot, standing alone, create such a rebuttable presumption.
