U.S. Const. amend. IV; Me. Const. art. I, § 5; State v. Glover, 2014 ME 49, ¶ 10, 89 A.3d 1077. This authority applies to defendants who have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the location of the search. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 143, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). [¶ 16] The owner of a home has the right to consent to a warrantless search by law enforcement. Fernandez v. California, — U.S.-, 134 S.Ct. 1126, 1132, 188 L.Ed.2d 25 (2014). However, the United States Supreme Court has generally recognized that an overnight guest in a home has a reasonable expectation of privacy in that home. Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 96-97, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990); see also Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483, 488-90 & n. 7, 84 S.Ct. 889, 11 L.Ed.2d 856 (1964) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 17] An officer may conduct a warrantless
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 that search of hotel room without a search warrant and without consent of absent guest was unlawful even though hotel clerk had consented to search holding that hotel night clerks consent to search an occupied guest room was not valid consent and the evidence obtained from the search was inadmissible holding that the defendants unlawful arrest in his hotel room rendered his subsequent consent to the search of his room invalid even though he signed a consent form allowing the search after his arrest because the government  completely failed to address whether there was a break in the causal relationship between the unlawful arrest and the subsequent search holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible