NCJ Number
195384
Date Published
2002
Length
18 pages
Annotation
This handbook presents the facts, the law, the legal guidelines, and the commentary on the South Carolina Supreme Court's decision in South Carolina v. Bernard Laux; and presents Part 2 in a series on Operation Lifesaver, which pertains to police officer responses to train-vehicle crashes.
Abstract
In South Carolina v. Bernard Laux, the question considered by the court was whether Cooke, a temporary resident in Laux's apartment, had actual or apparent authority sufficient to consent to a search of the premises. The court held that it was objectively reasonable for officers to conclude Cooke had apparent authority to consent to the search of the residence. Under these circumstances, the court found it was reasonable for Detective Conkey to assume Cooke had authority to consent to the search of the premises. Accordingly, the trial court's ruling denying Laux's motion to suppress was affirmed. The "Commentary" advises that the test of whether a third person has sufficient status to consent to a search is whether the third party possesses common authority over, or has some other sufficient relationship to the premises or things to be searched. It is equally important for investigating officers to document those individual facts, known at the time of the consent, upon which the officers are relying. Officers should document observations and conversations that lead them to believe that the person has the authority to consent. In addition to providing statistics on the characteristics of train-vehicle crashes, the handbook provides a "Grade Crossing Collision Investigative Checklist," which is designed to aid police officers in their investigations of train-vehicle crashes. Guidelines are provided for stopping a train, responding to the crash of a passenger train, and precautions for police when chasing a suspect into a rail yard.