\u201cContrary to Defendant’s argument, Ms. Barry had common authority over the property. She lived in the home with Defendant and their minor child, and shared a bedroom with Defendant. Consistent with the fact she resided in the home and had common authority over the property, she was present at the home with her child purportedly without Defendant when law enforcement officials arrived. The objective facts establish Ms. Barry had common authority over the property, including the attic.\u201d She signed a consent for \u201cResidence (Bed Room\/Common Areas).\u201d The attic was searched, too. The form was not a limitation against searching the attic; it included the attic. United States v. Gardiner, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1946 (D.Me. Jan. 6, 2017).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cContrary to Defendant’s argument, Ms. Barry had common authority over the property. She lived in the home with Defendant and their minor child, and shared a bedroom with Defendant. Consistent with the fact she resided in the home and had … Continue reading