the warrantless search. According to the Manual, “When conducting a search where the offender is a cohabitant, the search will entail only the offender’s assigned area of the residence, unless the third party agrees to a search of their area by signing [a consent form].” Probation and Parole Manual eh. 3, at 4 (Dec. 1, 1992). The officers searched only the common areas of the residence and the one bedroom Cantley had previously identified as his. Ms. Cantley’s consent was not needed to search those areas. See, e.g., State v. West, 185 Wis.2d 68, 517 N.W.2d 482, 491 (1994) (“[T]he parole search may extend to all parts of the premises to which the probationer or parolee has common authority, just as if it were a consent search.”); State v. Johnson, 748 P.2d 1069, 1073-74 (Utah 1987) (<HOLDING>); see also 4 Wayne R. LaFave, Search and
holding requirement that a prisoner agree to search condition of parole is reasonable in light of the parolees significantly diminished privacy interests holding warrantless search of common areas of parolees apartment which he shared with his mother was lawful even though parolees mother may not have consented to the search holding parole officer could extract consent from parolees sister prior to parolees release holding that a parole condition which restricted a parolees access to the internet unless he had prior approval of his parole officer was reasonably related to reintegrating the parolee into his community and protecting the general public and did not violate parolees first amendment rights holding parolees right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was unaffected by his signing of the consent to search provision