presenting facts that would support a finding that the third party who consented to the search of another’s bedroom did, in fact, exercise some control over the bed: room. However, absent any facts to indicate that control over a separate bedroom was shared or somehow retained, or that a third party had joint access to the room, a finding of actual authority cannot be supported. Under this view, even under circumstances in which the consenting third party is related to the person being searched, access and control are the paramount factors. We refuse to apply such reasoning here. In our view it is more reasonable to conclude, on the particular facts of this case (viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling), that 5 (Ala.Crim.App.1990), cert. denied, (Nov. 16, 1990) (<HOLDING>); State v. Woods, 806 S.W.2d 205 (Tenn.
holding consent involuntary when police told defendants grandmother they had a search warrant and she allowed them to enter and search holding that where the accused lived in his grandmothers home for approximately three months paid a portion of the bills and the grandmother knocked on the door before entering the room the accuseds occupancy of the room was not so exclusive as to deprive the grandmother of her authority to consent to a search of the accuseds room holding that appellants father had authority to consent to search of defendants bedroom where house defendant lived in was owned by his parents room was not locked and defen dants family was not denied access to bedroom holding that the accuseds grandmother could consent to a search of the accuseds bedroom grandmother owned the home grandmother lived in the upstairs portion of the house while the accused slept in the basement and grandmother had not been in basement more than six times in the past three years holding that a defendants sister could consent to a search of only the common areas of their shared house and her own bedroom and explicitly stating that the sister could not consent to search the defendants bedroom because the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her own bedroom