fact that Cherokee as an entity had access to the closet is demonstrated by the fact that Cherokee employees other than Mrs. Madison had keys to the closet. Moreover, a Cherokee employee testified that Mrs. Madison had come to 2771 Colony Park and removed her personal possessions before April 17. Mrs. Madison also argues that even if the receiver had authority to consent to a search of the Colony Park premises, he did not have authority to consent to a search of her office, which she sometimes, but not always, kept locked. However, she never so much as alleges what, if any, incriminating documents were seized from her office, nor contends that she was prejudiced by the admission of any particular document. See Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 53, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970) (<HOLDING>). 7 . Both defendants incorrectly assert that
holding that a plaintiffs  1983 claim accrued on the date of the alleged illegal search and seizure holding that the evidence obtained as part of an illegal stop should have been suppressed even where the defendants consented to the search holding that the admission of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is subject to a harmlesserror analysis holding that evidence obtained by improper search or seizure is inadmissible holding that the omission of an element from the jury charge is subject to harmlesserror review