v. Carney, 471 U.S. 386, 390-91, 105 S.Ct. 2066, 85 L.Ed.2d 406 (1985)); Wiede v. State, 214 S.W.3d 17, 24 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007). 19 . Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). 20 . Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Maxwell, 73 S.W.3d at 281. 21 . Maxwell, 73 S.W.3d at 281 (citing Robinette, 519 U.S. at 40, 117 S.Ct. 417). 22 . United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 170, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); Becknell v. State, 720 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Fancher v. State, 659 S.W.2d 836, 839 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983) (explaining that "[i]t is well established in Texas that third parties have authority to consent to a search when they have equal control ove ston [1st Dist.] 1984, pet. granted) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. State, 797 S.W.2d 243
holding that defendants adult son who was living on defendants property had equal control over use of premises and had authority to consent to a search holding that consent to search premises includes consent to search washing machine on those premises holding defendants girlfriend had authority to consent to search as a joint occupant holding that mother who was resident of house shared with adult daughter could give valid consent to search premises holding that babysitter living in home connected via ramp to defendants home had no authority to consent to search of defendants home