was incorrect. IV. In sum, we find that the detectives’ behavior in this case did violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the evidence should have been suppressed. While a warrant to search the discs might perhaps have been obtained, that is beside the point. At the time of the search, there was no valid exception to the warrant requirement justifying the detectives’ behavior. The law constrains us to reverse the judgment of the District Court, and to remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. 1 . Mr. James was found guilty of the Missouri state law charges. He is currently serving a four-year prison sentence. 2 . We do not mean to establish a per se rule for shared space. See, e.g., United States v. Block, 590 F.2d 535, 541 (4th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). Instead, we note the greater ease with which
holding that hotel night clerks consent to search an occupied guest room was not valid consent and the evidence obtained from the search was inadmissible 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 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 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 twentyyearold appellants mother had authority to consent to a search of sons bedroom where appellant had agreed to pay 10 per week as rent he had not instructed mother to stay out of his room and mother infrequently entered appellants room to pick up after him