sleeps in the other’s bedroom. This fact alone, therefore, does not negate Reed’s authority to consent to a search of the appellant’s bedroom. Although a determination of joint access, vel non, is always a fact-specific inquiry, under the “common authority” test, where the defendant lives “with a parent or other close relative, and the relative consents to a search of defendant’s bedroom, most courts presume that the relative has sufficient common authority over the bedroom to authorize the consent to search.” The defendant may, however, overcome this presumption by presenting evidence that defendant had “exclusive possession of the searched premises.” Here, however, the appellant’s door was not shown to have been locked, and the trial court was entitled to disbelieve 2d 205 (2006) (<HOLDING>). 35 . People v. Bliey, 232 Ill.App.3d 606, 173
holding that the lessee of an apartment where defendant was residing could not consent to a search of the defendants room where the lessee characterized defendants bedroom as his space and said she did not enter the room as a regular matter holding that as owner of the residence the grandfather had actual authority to consent to a search of the defendants bedroom because there was no evidence that grandfather lacked authority to enter defendants room and because defendants bedroom did not have a lock or anything restricting access to the room the court found that the grandfather shared common authority over the 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 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 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