How have courts dealt with allegations that a minor was in possession of heroin?

Next, the minor relies on Sibron v. New York (1968) 392 U.S. 40 [20 L.Ed.2d 917] (Sibron) where a police officer observed the defendant, someone the officer did not know and had no information about, talking to several known drug addicts over an eight-hour period of time. When the officer later observed the defendant with three known drug addicts, the officer made contact with the defendant and said, " 'You know what I am after.' " (Id. at p. 45 [20 L.Ed.2d at pp. 924-925].) When the defendant reached into his pocket, the officer reached into the same pocket and found packets of heroin. (Ibid.) The trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the heroin after the arresting officer testified he believed the defendant was in possession of narcotics because the officer had seen the defendant "conversing with a number of known addicts over an eight-hour period" despite the fact that he had no knowledge of what the defendant and the addicts were talking about, and the defendant had admitted on the stand that he had indeed been talking to the addicts about narcotics. (Id. at p. 47 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 925].) The denial was affirmed on appeal. (Id. at pp. 49-50 [20 L.Ed.2d at p. 927].)