that if crime prevention were deemed a private motive, searches by private parties would never implicate the Fourth Amendment. Id. If an unwarranted search did occur — and there is no dispute that Brown’s copying was not pursuant to a warrant— our precedents establish that such a search would generally be unreasonable, absent an exception such as valid consent. See United States v. Ziegler, 474 F.3d 1184, 1191 (9th Cir.2007) (upholding search of employee’s workplace computer where employer gave consent). A third party with “common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected” may consent to a government search without the search violating the Fourth Amendment. Id.; see also United States v. Kim, 105 F.3d 1579, 1582 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Here, Brown testified at another trial that
holding defendant assumed risk that third party would consent to search of storage locker where defendant instructed third party to rent locker under third partys name and allowed third party to keep possession of lease papers and to occasionally retain the keys holding that when law enforcement officers obtain consent to search pursuant to apparent authority if the surrounding circumstances are such that a reasonable person would doubt that authority exists and not act upon the consent without further inquiry  then the warrantless search without further inquiry is unlawful unless authority actually exists emphasis added holding that child residents had no actual or apparent authority to consent to search of mothers home holding consent was given involuntarily when a reasonable person would not have felt they had the choice to withhold consent to search holding that consent may be given by person with actual or apparent authority to do so and that defendant by authorizing associate to rent storage unit for defendant in associates name assumed the risk that associate would consent to a search of the unit