State v. Gonzalez-Coria

"When the police have obtained valid consent from someone with actual authority to search a place, the fact that it is a shared space is irrelevant, unless, at a minimum, a cotenant is present, claims a privacy interest in the space, and expressly objects to the search or refuses consent." Or. Const. Art. I, § 9.

Defendant appealed from a conviction of a number of drug offenses and child neglect. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's denial of her motion to suppress evidence obtained during a search of her home. Defendant argued that, under the "disagreeing tenants" exception to the "common authority" rule, her denial of consent trumped her boyfriend's consent to search. In response, the State argued that Defendant never refused consent or objected to the search, but rather denied having any authority to consent to a search of the property. "When the police have obtained valid consent from someone with actual authority to search a place, the fact that it is a shared space is irrelevant, unless, at a minimum, a cotenant is present, claims a privacy interest in the space, and expressly objects to the search or refuses consent." Or. Const. Art. I, § 9. The Court held that Defendant's continuous denial of a privacy interest in the property barred her from raising any version of the disagreeing tenant's doctrine. The Court further held that this case was not the appropriate vehicle to adopt the disagreeing tenants doctrine. Affirmed.