Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): where she took initiative to summon police because defendant was storing drugs in a closet used by both of them); State v. Frame, 45 Or.App. 723, 609 P.2d 830 (1980) (noting that a consenting occupant can act in his own interest where he or she summons the police to seize stolen property kept in the premises because the consenting party could later be charged with possession of such items); People v. Irel 2000) (explaining that mother's ownership of the house in which appellant lived was prima facie evidence of authority to let police officers search the house and the fact that appellant was an adult living in a bedroom within that house did not necessarily negate the mother’s authority to consent to search room); Turner v. State, 931 S.W.2d 52 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1996) (<HOLDING>); Sailings v. State, 789 S.W.2d 408 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding that appellants mother had the authority to consent to search of defendants bedroom defendant lived with parents rentfree for four years mother owned the house appellants bedroom door was open mother knocked whenever appellants door was locked and there were no restrictions placed on mothers right to enter bedroom (C) holding that a mother had apparent authority to consent to a search of her adult sons bedroom including a closed vinyl bag found in the bedroom (D) holding that child cannot consent to search of parents bedroom (E) holding that twentyyearold appellants mother had authority to consent to a search of sons bedroom where appellant had agreed to pay 10 per week as rent he had not instructed mother to stay out of his room and mother infrequently entered appellants room to pick up after him
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