intrusions into areas where they have a legitimate expectation of privacy.” United States v. Newton, 369 F.3d 659, 664 (2d Cir.2004); see U.S. Const, amend IV. As an overnight guest in Bean’s apartment, Snype shared in his host’s legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises. See Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990); accord United States v. Fields, 113 F.3d 313, 320 (2d Cir.1997). Although warrantless searches of private property are generally presumed to be unreasonable, the law recognizes certain exceptions, for example, when the search is conducted pursuant to the consent of an authorized person. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); United States v. Lewis, 386 F.3d 475, 481 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). “The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments require
holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant holding that a visual body cavity search requires probable cause and a search warrant recognizing that where authorized party consents to search neither a warrant nor probable cause is necessary holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises recognizing the longstanding principle that neither a warrant nor probable cause nor indeed any measure of individualized suspicion is an indispensable component of reasonableness in every circumstance