Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): authority to consent even if he did not. Because we hold that Reed had actual authority to consent to the search, there is no need for us to determine whether the officer’s conduct was justified by Reed’s apparent authority. We leave the apparent-authority doctrine to be further developed in a case in which its application is, unlike here, determinative of the outcome. Conclusion Because he possessed actual authority over the appellant’s bedroom, Reed had the power to consent to a search of the appellant’s bedroom. The search of the appellant’s bedroom was, therefore, reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and, as there are no other points of error requiring remand, we affirm the judgment of the 338, 62 L.Ed.2d 238 (1979) (<HOLDING>). 18 . Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465, 466, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant (B) holding that it is unreasonable to search individuals who are in the same general area as someone being searched under a valid warrant without something more to establish probable cause (C) holding that if sufficient untainted evidence was presented in the warrant affidavit to establish probable cause the warrant was nevertheless valid (D) holding searches conducted without a warrant based on probable cause are presumptively unreasonable (E) holding that police do not need probable cause or a warrant to search items that have already been searched for inventory purposes
Output (English): holding warrant valid where search warrant application affidavit was signed and probable cause existed for issuance of warrant