of proof to justify the warrantless search. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. at 181, 110 S.Ct. at 2797. Yet, as in Corea, the State did not present Wunderlich’s testimony, did not attempt to do so, and did not explain his absence, even though the State was relying on Wunderlich’s apparent authority to justify the search. See Corea, 52 S.W.3d at 318. Again, as noted above, Officer Davis testified that he did not receive Wunderlich’s consent to enter appellant’s bedroom. Writing for this Court, Justice Murry Cohen stated that, “No expectation of privacy is more reasonable than that which is given to one’s bedroom. From there, one may exclude the whole world, including one’s children, and especially the government.” Reynolds v. State, 781 S.W.2d 351, 355 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, pet. refd) (<HOLDING>). The same logic applies to roommates as well
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 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 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