applied an incorrect standard of review when it failed to review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. However, the State fails to identify any credibility or fact determinations that the court of appeals did not resolve in favor of the trial court’s decision. The trial court, in denying the motion, made implied findings of fact that the officers’ testimony was credible and the facts were as the officers testified. The court of appeals correctly viewed the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, essentially discounting the appellant’s evidence and accepting all of the State’s, in reaching its conclusion that there was no authority on which the search could be deemed reasonable. Likewise, we also accep A.2d 1189, 1190-91 (1981) (<HOLDING>). 39 . See United States v. Kelley, 953 F.2d
holding that an overnight guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his hosts home 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 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 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