the bed in the bedroom he shared only with McMannis. By staying in a shared house, one does not assume the risk that a housemate will snoop under one's bed, much less permit others to do so. Short of attach ing to the bag an explicit “No Trespassing” sign with his name on it, Davis could hardly have displayed a clearer "exhibition of an actual expectation of privacy,” United States v. Sledge, 650 F.2d 1075, 1077 n. 2 (9th Cir.1981). We have rarely applied the "assumption of risk” analysis urged by the dissent, and the few cases in which we have done so have involved situations where the person whose property was searched clearly ceded authority over the property, either partially or totally, to the consenting third party. See, e.g., United States v. Kim, 105 F.3d 1579 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Sledge, 650 F.2d at 1080 n. 10 (explaining
holding defendant assumed risk that third party would consent to search of storage locker where defendant instructed third party to rent locker under third partys name and allowed third party to keep possession of lease papers and to occasionally retain the keys holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant recognizing that a forum selection clause also applies to a nonsignatory third party where the third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract