Oliver v. State · No. 5D2025-0442 (Fla. 5th DCA) · Decided October 9, 2026
More analysis may follow as additional information is received and reviewed. Sign up for alerts.
A man carrying keys to a third party’s house and to a locked safe that held drugs could not be convicted of possessing those drugs without independent proof that he knew of and controlled them, the Fifth District Court of Appeal has held. The court reversed Dwight Deon Oliver’s Seminole County drug trafficking and possession convictions and remanded with instructions to discharge him.
What Happened
Oliver was subject to an arrest warrant. Officers found him in a truck backing out of the driveway of a house on Molten Avenue in Sanford. He was arrested and placed in a police vehicle. While officers waited for a search warrant for the house, they saw Jessica Green in the backyard carrying a bag and a locked safe with a keyhole and a keypad. Green knew Oliver and has a child with Oliver’s brother.
Oliver had a lanyard around his neck with several keys. One fit the Molten Avenue house and another fit the safe. Officers used the key from his lanyard to open the safe and found the contraband. Oliver was charged with trafficking in fentanyl and in phenethylamines, and with two counts of possession of cocaine and another controlled substance, all found in the safe.
Oliver moved for a judgment of acquittal. The State argued that his keys to the house and safe, plus his family connection to Green, were enough to send a constructive possession theory to the jury. The trial judge denied the motion, saying Oliver “not only had the key to the residence, but he also had the key to the safe. And the safe is where the drugs were specifically found.”
What the Court Held
To prove constructive possession, the State must show the accused had dominion and control over the contraband, knew it was present, and knew of its illicit nature. Where the premises are not in the accused’s exclusive possession, knowledge and control cannot be inferred without independent proof, the court explained, citing Sierra v. State, 746 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
The house key did not supply that proof. The house belonged to a third party, and the State presented no evidence that Oliver owned, lived in, or otherwise controlled it. The court cited the Third District’s decision in Stevens v. State, 120 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), which observed that a “next-door neighbor, a housekeeper, or a landlord” might likewise hold a key without committing any crime.
“The same is true of the safe key,” the court wrote. “No evidence, including fingerprints, DNA, or otherwise, was provided to show that Oliver handled, possessed, or controlled the safe or the contents inside. A key affording access, without more, establishes only opportunity, not possession.”
Green’s possession of the safe did not fill the gap either. Officers saw Green, not Oliver, carrying the safe, and she did so after Oliver was already in custody. Green testified that the safe was hers, that she had put it in the house the night before, and that she could open it without a key using a PIN code. The State presented no evidence that Green was acting at Oliver’s direction or that Oliver knew she was removing the safe. “Green’s actual possession of the safe establishes her knowledge and control over the safe’s contents, not Oliver’s,” the court wrote.
Because the State failed to present sufficient independent evidence from which a rational jury could find constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt, the court held the trial court erred in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal. It reversed and remanded with instructions to discharge.
Why It Matters
When drugs are found in a place the accused does not exclusively possess, holding a key to that place — or to the container the drugs are in — does not by itself prove constructive possession under this decision. The State needs independent proof of knowledge and control, which, according to a Second District decision the court cited, can include an accused’s pretrial statement, witness testimony, or scientific evidence, and here the State presented no fingerprint, DNA, or other evidence showing that Oliver handled, possessed, or controlled the safe or its contents.
The Opinion
Download the full opinion (PDF)
| Court | Fifth District Court of Appeal |
| Case No. | 5D2025-0442 |
| Lower Court | Circuit Court, Seminole County (Judge Jessica Recksiedler) |
| Opinion by | Per curiam (Jay, C.J., and Makar and Lambert, JJ.) |
| Decided | October 9, 2026 |
| Result | Reversed and remanded with instructions to discharge |