What is the burden of obtaining consent from a third party who has common authority to consent to a search?

One way the prosecution may meet this burden is by showing that police obtained "permission to search . . . from a third party who possessed common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or effects sought to be inspected." (United States v. Matlock (1974) 415 U.S. 164, 171.) Common authority to consent to a search "does not rest upon the law of property." (Id. at p. 171, fn. 7.) Instead, it is held "by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched." (Ibid.) This common authority exception "stands for the proposition that the reasonableness of such a search is in significant part a function of commonly held understanding about the authority that co-inhabitants may exercise in ways that affect each other's interests." (Georgia v. Randolph (2006) 547 U.S. 103, 111.)

Valid consent may be given by (1) the person whose property or place is searched, (2) a third party who possesses common authority over that property or place, or (3) a third party who the police reasonably believe has such common authority. (People v. Superior Court (Walker) (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1183, 1198-1199.) Thus "where the facts available to the officer at the time of the search would lead a reasonable person to believe 'that the consenting party had authority over the premises [or property]'

Page 7