As Mr. Brie can Rebut the Presumption his Cotenant has Control for Most Purposes of His Bedroom Space and Shoebox due to the Parent-Child Relationship between them because of his Age, this Court Should Find that His Cotenant Did Not Have Actual Authority to Consent.
Additionally, sufficient relationships, such as parent-child, between the owner and consenting third-party may give rise to a rebuttable presumption the third-party has control of the space or container for most purposes and therefore actual authority over it. See U.S. v. Rith, 164 F.3d 1323, 1330 (10th Cir. 1999). The owner’s age and other factors such as paying rent, having a lock on the place or container, and the nature of the relationship can be used to rebut the presumption. Rith, 164 F.3d at 1330-32; Whitfield, 939 F.2d at 1075. Being cotenants is not a sufficient relationship to create the presumption. Rith,…show more content… Brie and his cotenant because his cotenant is his mother. State. of Barbara Brie ¶ 1. However, this case is unlike Rith in which the owner was merely eighteen years old and still lived with his parents, and is like Whitfield in which the owner was twenty-nine years old and lived with his mother. Here, Mr. Brie is thirty years old and shares a studio apartment with his mother. State. of Bart Brie ¶ 1; State of Barbara Brie ¶ 1. The Government may further point to Mr. Brie being without employment as evidence that he was living in his mother’s apartment. State. of Bart Brie ¶ 1. However, there is no evidence pertaining to whose name is on the lease for the apartment and Mr. Brie’s cotenant’s statement to the officers in which she states that she lives with her son (rather than stating her son lives with her) and that certain pieces of items belong to him seem to indicate that she was no longer exercising her parental authority over her son’s items and was living with him as a cotenant. State of Barbara Brie ¶ 1,
