without a warrant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The Government responds that the district court correctly found that the officers’ warrantless entry was lawful because Ms. Webster consented to their entry and because exigent circumstances justified entry. Because we affirm on the third-party consent issue, we do not address whether exigent circumstances justified the officers’ warrantless entry. The Fourth Amendment protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” U.S. Const, amend. IV. Officers’ entry into a home constitutes a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. See Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 585-86, 100 S.Ct. 1371, 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). If officers enter a h Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we see no basis to disturb the
holding that officers had a reasonable belief that defendants father had authority to consent to the search of his sons room and computer because he owned the home and had access to the room and computer at will holding that while a mother could consent to a search of her sons room she did not have authority to consent to a search of a locked footlocker within the room holding search of probationers computer by probation officers was reasonable even in absence of a search provision when conditions on probationers computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer holding that a roommate with shared access to anothers computer has common authority over the computer and can grant consent to search holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room rented by relatives when he had a key to the room and permission to use the room at will