3308, 82 L.Ed.2d 530 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring) (stating that when a third party gives consent to search a room, that person is not necessarily consenting to a search of the closed containers within the room). For the following reasons, I would hold that it did not. According to settled principles, a third party, with standing to do so, may validly consent to the search of a closed container, even though the actual owner of the container has a heightened expectation of privacy in its contents. See, e.g., Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731, 740, 89 S.Ct. 1420, 1425, 22 L.Ed.2d 684 (1969) (cousin had authority to consent to search of the defendant’s duffel bag, wMch both men used and wMch had been left in the cousin’s home); United States v. Ladell, 127 F.3d 622, 624 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Richardson, 562 F.2d 476
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 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 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 although son was eighteen years old and paid rent mother could consent to search of sons bedroom where nothing suggested mother lacked access to room holding that a mother could consent to a search of her adult sons bedroom including a closed duffle bag stored in between the mattresses on the bed