Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): without a warrant, the search “is presumptively unreasonable, and evidence obtained from such a search is inadmissible, subject only to a few carefully established exceptions.” United States v. Harrison, 639 F.3d 1273, 1278 (10th Cir.2011). “Voluntary consent to search is one such exception.” Id. “Consent may be obtained from the individual whose property is searched, or in certain instances, from a third party who possesses either actual authority or apparent authority to consent to the search.” United States v. Cos, 498 F.3d 1115, 1124 (10th Cir.2007); see also Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S.Ct. 2793, 111 L.Ed.2d 148 (1990) (voluntary consent can be obtained “from a third party who possesses common authority over the premis .2d 634 (2012); Sanchez, 608 F.3d at 689 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Andrus, 483 F.3d 711, 720 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept (B) 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 (C) holding defendants 15yearold daughter had actual authority to consent because she lived full time in the house and had unrestricted access to it (D) holding that the appellant had not changed his residence from his registered address despite the fact that the house had never had electricity service during the time that he had lived there (E) holding that appellants father had authority to consent to search of defendants bedroom where house defendant lived in was owned by his parents room was not locked and defen dants family was not denied access to bedroom
Output (English): holding that appellants father had authority to consent to search of defendants bedroom where house defendant lived in was owned by his parents room was not locked and defen dants family was not denied access to bedroom