premises,] had the authority to consent to a search of the bag.” Id. at 133, 654 S.E.2d at 915. The Supreme Court contrasted this situation with the facts in Krise v. State, 746 N.E.2d 957 (Ind.2001), which involved a man and a woman who shared an apartment. Glenn, 275 Va. at 136 n. 3, 654 S.E.2d at 916 n. 3. The police obtained consent from the man to search the apartment in the woman’s absence. Id. The Supreme Court of Virginia accepted the conclusion that the officer who searched a purse found in the house “knew that the handbag was a woman’s purse and that Krise was the only woman living in the house.” Id. (quoting Krise, 746 N.E.2d at 971). On those facts, the Supreme Court opined that the Indiana court “correctly held police could not have reasonably believed the 2 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we hold that it was unreasonable
holding that officers had a reasonable belief that defendants father had authority to consent to the search of his sons room and computer because he owned the home and had access to the room and computer at will holding that a driver of a tractor trailer had apparent authority to consent to a search of a trailer even though he stated its not up to me i dont own the stuff before signing a consent form when the surrounding cireumstances suggested that he had such authority 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 it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept holding that a resident had apparent authority to consent to the search of a gun case in plain view on a living room shelf even though he disclaimed knowledge regarding its contents because he did not disclaim ownership of or access to the case