109,126 S.Ct. 1515. While the rule against warrantless entry is vigilantly guarded, the voluntary consent of an individual possessing authority is one “carefully drawn” exception. Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 499, 78 S.Ct. 1253, 2 L.Ed.2d 1514 (1958); see Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990). Voluntary consent to search may be obtained from the person whose property is to be searched or from a fellow occupant who shares common authority over the property. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974); United States v. Gallagher, 66 M.J. 250, 253 (C. via mutual use of the property by a person with joint access or control. Rader, 65 M.J. at 33-34 (quoting Matlock, 415 U.S. at 171 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 988) (<HOLDING>). Appellant wishes us to find that the search
holding search of probationers computer by probation officers was reasonable even in absence of a search provision when conditions on probationers computer use reduced his expectation of privacy in his computer 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 where there is no evidence of shared use or common authority an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the files kept on a personally owned computer holding that a roommate with shared access to anothers computer has common authority over the computer and can grant consent to search holding a month delay in search of a computer constitutional because probable cause continued to exist at the time of the search and no prejudice occurred