The following is a computer-generated transcription, some grammar and spelling errors may be inherent

Hey guys, it's Anthony Bandiero here with Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training. I'm in beautiful Lafayette, Louisiana teaching at the parish, which is the county. That's what they call it, the County Sheriff's Department. And a question was asked whether or not a driver may consent to search not only the vehicle, right, but also passenger's possessions?

The answer is maybe this is what the law says, Does the officer reasonably believe that the driver has common authority over those passengers' possessions? And common authority comes in three flavors? One, do you reasonably believe they have mutual use, or joint access or control? One of those three, sometimes more than those three, sometimes all of them, for example, married couples, oftentimes, you know, share property, they have mutual use of it, they both use it, they both access it, and they both have a degree of control over it. But in a situation of friends, it gets a little more trickier. So let's say you stop a car. There's a female passenger and a driver, male driver. The male driver gives you consent to search. Can the officer search the purse in the passionate side? The answer be probably not. Because with those facts that I gave you, it doesn't seem reasonable to believe that the driver has common authority over that purse. What about the passenger has a backpack in the backseat? And it's not there's no name on it. And it's just It's back there. And the driver gives consent; the occupants get out, the passenger gets out. And then the officer searches it and finds, let's say, narcotics, that it's then charged against the passenger. Whether or not the driver has common authority depends, again, whether it's reasonable to believe that, that he has some degree of control over the backpack mutual use joint access, if the backpack is in the backseat, and nobody mentioned makes any mention that it's not their backpack. And in what those basic facts, it seems reasonable to believe that the that that the backpack belongs to the driver. And so therefore, the driver would have apparent common authority over the backpack even if later. He it's proven that that was incorrect. That's not what's required under the Fourth Amendment; what's required is reasonableness. So it's it's not actual authority that we have to prove in most states. Its apparent authority. I hope that helps. One way of looking at this, by the way, is I call it the piggyback rule. The piggyback rule is simply saying, Look, if you're going to base your search off of somebody's consent, each item each place searched, has to be something that you reasonably believe that the person giving you consent could have done the same thing without trespassing on anybody's rights. Does that make sense? You know, so for example, if you go to an apartment, and you have two roommates, and one roommate gone, it seems reasonable to believe that the consenting roommate that's in that apartment can give you consent to search to common areas, his room, a shared bathroom, the kitchen, but would not seem reasonable to get consent to search somebody else's room where he does not stay and does not live in. But married couples, it seems reasonable to get consent to search from let's say the wife while the husband is not there to search almost anything in the house because most spouses have unfettered access to the entire house, even if they don't normally look in those places like so, for example, the garage if the wife and Misty, I don't really go in the workshop, and I don't look in the tools, and I don't look in these areas, but you can go search them, most likely that consent to search is going to be upheld as valid because it's reasonably believed that the officers can piggyback off of the wife's consent...