With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Cruz, the case presently before this court does not involve a substantive criminal conviction which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, this case involves a violation of probation which need only be proven by the' preponderance, or greater weight, of the evidence. See, e.g., Humbert v. State, 933 So.2d 726, 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). We hold, however, that, even under this lesser burden of proof, the evidence at the YOP hearing was insufficient to establish appellant’s dominion and control of the marijuana. Nothing in the evidence before the trial court tied the marijuana to appellant as opposed to the passenger. Indeed, the evidence did not establish that the pick-up truck was owned or even regularly driven or used by appellant. Cf. Brown v. State, 428 So.2d 250 (Fla.1983) (<HOLDING>). Because the State’s proof in this case relies

A: holding that where drugs are found in the presence and plain view of the owner or resident occupant of a home dominion and control maybe inferred
B: holding that circumstantial evidence of guilt emanating from the defendants proximity to illicit drugs in plain view was equally susceptible to the reasonable hypotheses that the defendant was a mere visitor and that the drugs were in the possession and control of the owner or other occupant of the premises
C: holding that when drugs are hidden knowledge of their presence generally cannot be inferred solely from defendants control over the vehicle
D: holding that proof of the discovery of illegal drugs in plain view in the presence or two or more joint occupants of the premises is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession
A.