COURT UPHOLDS DRUG CONVICTION

CONCORD (AP) - Police can search a passenger's belongings if the driver of
the car consents and appears to have authority to grant permission, the
state Supreme Court ruled Monday.

In the 4-0 decision, the court upheld Charles Sawyer's conviction of
possession with intent to distribute marijuana and hashish.

Sawyer had argued police searched his bag illegally during a 1999 traffic
stop. Sawyer was a passenger and did not consent to the search that
uncovered the drugs.

Prosecutors argued police searched legally under the "doctrine of apparent
authority."

In siding with prosecutors, the court said "apparent authority" exists when
police base the search on a reasonable belief the third party had authority
to consent.

Rochester police arrested Sawyer after stopping a car driven by Joseph
Stearns for speeding. Sawyer and Leonard Geomelis were passengers.

Officer Michael McQuade said he smelled marijuana when he approached the
car. After learning the group had come from a bar, he asked Stearns to step
outside and undergo a field sobriety test, which Stearns passed.

McQuade then asked Stearns whether there were drugs or weapons in the car.
Stearns said no and McQuade asked permission to search the vehicle, which
Stearns granted.

McQuade found the drugs in a black nylon bag on the floor behind Stearns' seat.

As police started to handcuff the men, Sawyer told them the others didn't
have anything to do with the drugs and claimed they belonged to him.

The lower court found McQuade legally searched the car. The high court agreed.

The high court noted that Sawyer did not object to the search, the bag was
behind Stearns' seat and was the kind often used to hold tape cassettes or
compact discs.

"This type of bag could reasonably be believed to belong to Stearns,
particularly when it was found behind his seat," the court said.

Considering the total circumstances, McQuade reasonably concluded he had
permission to search the bag, the court found.

"Law enforcement officers may not, however, blindly accept a person's
consent to search," the court cautioned. "If the surrounding circumstances
would cause a reasonable person to doubt whether the third party had
authority to consent to the search, the officers may not lawfully act upon
the consent without further inquiry."