that a consent could retroactively validate a search or seizure that would otherwise be unlawful if evidence indicates that the consenting party so intended. Weaver, 874 P.2d at 1327-28. However, in that case, no evidence indicated that the defendant intended his consent to retroactively apply to the earlier search. The evidence seized by the police was thus suppressed. Weaver, 874 P.2d at 1328. Not surprisingly, there is a dearth of cases in other jurisdictions that have addressed the precise issue before this Court today. We review those cases located to glean insight to the issue. Just as the Weaver court in Oregon, at least two other jurisdictions have held or implied that a consent can justify an earlier unconstitutional search. See State v. Kimble (La. 1979), 375 So.2d 924, 927 (<HOLDING>); State v. Williams (La. 1977), 353 So.2d 1299,
holding that owners afterthefact consent to search and seize evidence in a vacant trailer that incriminated defendants constituted a waiver of the warrant requirement recognizing that consent is an exception to the warrant requirement and that voluntariness of consent depends on the totality of the circumstances holding that search of backpack constituted a search of defendants person and was not authorized by search warrant for premises holding that the defendants subsequent written consent given with the full knowledge that the police had previously entered his house without a warrant amounted to a waiver of the warrant requirement and rendered the earlier search and seizure valid holding that a driver of a tractor trailer had apparent authority to consent to a search of a trailer even though he stated its not up to me i dont own the stuff before signing a consent form when the surrounding cireumstances suggested that he had such authority