The trial court erred in finding that defendant lacked standing to challenge the propriety of the search of the apartment because defendant’s uncle, who resided in the apartment, told the police that defendant had stayed with his family “on and off” since he was five years old, and defendant slept on the couch, stored all of his clothes in the living room, and received mail at the apartment, and, as such, the evidence suggested that defendant had a legitimate privacy interest in the apartment and surrounding curtilage. The uncle, however, had apparent authority to consent. People v. Hill, 2017 NY Slip Op 05920, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5860 (1st Dept. Aug. 1, 2017).
Defendant’s father had apparent authority to consent to a search, so defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging it. Cabrera v. State, 2017 Del. LEXIS 325 (July 31, 2017).*