consent can nevertheless validate a search if it reasonably appears to the police that he does in fact have authority. The State has the burden to show that the person who consented to the search had actual or apparent authority to consent. To meet its burden, the State must provide evidence that a third party either had mutual access to and control over the place that was searched, or that the officers conducting the search reasonably believed facts provided to them by a third party that would have been legally sufficient to justify a search as reasonable. Under the Fourth Amendment, the State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that it was reasonable for officers to proceed on the information they had. Application The State argues that the court of app 566 (9th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). MEYERS, J., dissenting. Recently, in Vennus
holding that child cannot consent to search of parents bedroom 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 holding that a mother had apparent authority to consent to a search of her adult sons bedroom including a closed vinyl bag found in the bedroom holding that a third party could consent to a search of her roommates bedroom where she had permission to use the telephone which was located in the roommates bedroom holding that a lessee of a home could not consent to a search of a bedroom that was used exclusively by a temporary gratuitous guest because the guest had an expectation of privacy in the bedroom