Supreme Court of South Carolina· 2/22/2000

State v. Brockman

Citations

528 S.E.2d 661
339 S.C. 57
2000 S.C. LEXIS 41

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

recognizing that suppression is not warranted if officers had an erroneous but reasonable belief of authority to consent
holding that in an appeal from a motion to suppress on Fourth Amendment grounds, the appellate court would apply a deferential standard of review and affirm if there is any evidence to support the ruling
stating that a private search is a question of fact and the trial court’s ruling will be reversed only if there is clear error
stating that a private search is a question of fact and the trial court's ruling will be reversed only if there is clear error
applying a “clearly erroneous” standard of review in determining whether trial judge properly held defendant consented to search
noting a private search is a question of fact and the trial courts ruling will be reversed only if there is clear error

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Toal, Finney, Moore, Waller, Burnett

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.