☢ test - Í

found in car, evidence of urine and blood tests showing cocaine in defendant’s system was not irrelevant (but should have been excluded as illegally seized). Bryant v. State, 288 Ga.App. 863, 655 S.E.2d 707 (December 13, 2007). Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for drug possession. “The evidence here showed that after Bryant opened the door and let the officers into the motel room, they observed O’Neill and Horton on the bed. Horton was conscious and alert. O'Neill had passed out. Between two and three grams of methamphetamine, and a device used to smoke methamphetamine, were found on the bed. According to Officer Lemacks, [one of co-defendants] attributed O’Neill’s unconscious state to the fact that he was having marital problems and had been drinking or smoking the entire night. These circumstances were sufficient to ‘authorize a finding that [all three occupants of the rooms] had equal access to the [methamphetamine in the ring box] and were in joint possession of [it]. [Cit.]’” Reversed as to co-defendant O’Neill , O’Neill v. State , 285 Ga. 125, 674 S.E.2d 302 (March 9, 2009). Castillo v. State, 288 Ga.App. 828, 655 S.E.2d 695 (December 11, 2007). Evidence was sufficient to establish defendant’s constructive possession of drugs: “‘ Beyond a defendant’s spatial proximity to the drugs, constructive possession may be shown by demonstrating the defendant knowingly had both the power and intention at a given time to exercise control over the substance. Power may be inferred from access to the drugs, while the matter of intent may be derived from the surrounding circumstances.’ (Footnotes omitted.) In re: Q.P., 286 Ga.App. 225, 226- 227 (648 S.E.2d 731) (2007). Here, the evidence showed that Castillo had access to the drugs , given that she identified the residence as ‘her apartment,’ that she had rented the apartment’s second bedroom, and that police recovered a bill for satellite television services to the apartment in her name. Such access to the drugs permitted the jury to infer that Castillo had the power to exercise control of the same. The evidence from which the jury could have inferred Castillo’s intent to exercise such control included the fact that some of the drugs were found in a bedroom occupied by Castillo, along with a drug log and materials routinely used to facilitate the distribution of drugs. Several of these items, including a quantity of methamphetamine apparently packaged for distribution, were found underneath the mattress on which Castillo had been sleeping. Finally, large quantities of cash were found in the apartment, and over $1,000 in cash was found in a purse identified as Castillo’s.” Accord, Riley v. State , 292 Ga.App. 202, 663 S.E.2d 835 (June 25, 2008); Bryson (August 22, 2008), above; Maldonado v. State , 293 Ga.App. 356, 667 S.E.2d 156 (August 22, 2008); Marshall v. State , 295 Ga.App. 354, 671 S.E.2d 860 (December 19, 2008) (constructive possession of drugs found in bathroom with defendant was bolstered by similar materials found in his pockets and defendant’s flight to location of drugs when officers entered his apartment); Reid v. State , 298 Ga.App. 889, 681 S.E.2d 671 (July 10, 2009); Price v. State , 303 Ga.App. 867, 694 S.E.2d 712 (April 7, 2010). Stewart v. State, 285 Ga.App. 760, 647 S.E.2d 411 (June 8, 2007). Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of possessing cocaine: “the cocaine Stewart was charged with possessing was found with his cigarettes, lighter, and keys, in a room used by him, and was identified as his by [teenager who lived in apartment].” Taylor v. State, 285 Ga.App. 697, 647 S.E.2d 381 (June 6, 2007). “There was ample evidence to support the jury’s finding that Taylor was guilty of possessing with intent to distribute the 40.1 pounds of marijuana in the package at the UPS facility. Taylor rented the car used by [co-defendant] Scurry to pick up the marijuana; gave the rented car to Scurry immediately before he drove the car to the UPS facility to pick up the marijuana; followed Scurry to the UPS facility and watched the pickup; police found the address from which the marijuana was shipped written down in Taylor’s car, and Taylor occupied the apartment where the marijuana was being shipped.” Giang v. State, 285 Ga.App. 491, 646 S.E.2d 710 (May 22, 2007). Evidence was sufficient to prove possession by defendant; fact that small tin containing marijuana “was found in Giang’s dresser drawer in Giang’s bedroom… provides more than a mere spatial connection between Giang and this particular contraband. See Cantrell v. State, 204 Ga.App. 330, 331 (419 S.E.2d 141) (1992) (ruling that a jury was authorized to find sole female defendant in constructive possession of a gun found in dresser drawer containing female clothing).” Gillis v. State, 285 Ga.App. 199, 645 S.E.2d 674 (April 27, 2007). Evidence insufficient to show possession of drugs by passenger of car where bag containing drugs was found under his seat during traffic stop. “The evidence in this case does not establish the required connection. Gillis was a passenger in the car, and the State did not prove that he owned or otherwise controlled the vehicle. No presumption of possession based on ownership or control of the car, therefore, can be found. [Cit.] Moreover, although [Agent] Akridge discovered the cocaine under Gillis’ seat, it was enclosed in a ‘mashed up’ brown paper bag. Akridge testified that he could see a portion of the bag from his position outside of the car. Nothing