Opinion ID: 1772145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: did the appellant have standing to challenge the legality of the consensual search of the trailer?

Text: When the appellant was arrested, he denied ownership of the trailer. In fact, he told police officers that Mary Lube owned the trailer. When questioned, Lube admitted this was true. It has long been the law in this state that if a person denies ownership or possession of property, he later has no standing to complain that the search of it was unlawful. See Watkins v. State, 262 So.2d 422, 423, 424 (Miss. 1972), Ball v. State, 194 So.2d 502, 503 (Miss. 1967). It is entirely arguable that discussion of this assignment of error should end at this point, since the appellant appears to have no standing to litigate the issue. Assuming for the moment that the appellant does have standing to litigate this point, it is the opinion of this Court that his claim should nonetheless fail for the reason that Mary Lube was possessed with sufficient authority to consent to a search of the trailer. As noted earlier, it is quite clear that Mary Lube owned the trailer in question and that title to it was still in her name. It is well settled under the law of this state that a person who possesses common authority with another over premises to be searched may validly give consent for a search as against the other. Shaw v. State, 476 So.2d 22, 23, 24 (Miss. 1985); Loper v. State, 330 So.2d 265, 267 (Miss. 1976). It thus is quite clear that Mary Lube had the authority to grant a consent to search the trailer, rendering moot the issue of whether or not the appellant had standing to complain about the search of the trailer. In light of the fact that Mary Lube was possessed of sufficient authority to consent to a search of the trailer, it is the opinion of this Court that this assignment of error is without merit.