An issue similar to the one we are facing here was addressed in a Sixth Circuit case in 2005. In U.S. v. Waller, the Court held that because the searched object was subject to mutual use by the resident who consented, the officers were not entitled to search the object without either a warrant and without further inquiry. 426 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2005). The U. S. v. Waller case cites U.S. v. Matlock, where the Court said that common authority comes from mutual use of the property at issue. Fallsbauer had an expectation of privacy with the shoebox, because the lid was on it, and it was in a location he did not expect his mother to use. U.S. v. Waller, 426 F.3d 838 (6th Cir. 2005). There is a two-part inquiry to be used to determine whether the person had an expectation of privacy.…show more content… . . Second, we inquire whether the individual's expectation of privacy is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.’ ” U.S. v. Waller, 426 F.3d 838, 844 (6th Cir. 2005). Here, Fallsbauer sought to preserve what was in the shoe box by placing it in the box with the lid secured on top. Securing the top, without leaving the box open, is an indication of his expectation of privacy. This expectation that he would put objects in a box on top of a dresser that he stores some of his clothes in, with the dresser located in the area he occupies as his bedroom area, recognizes that Fallsbauer was as normal as any other person while storing something in his bedroom and expecting it to remain undisturbed. If he did not expect to have privacy with his items, David could and likely would have just left the tablets out on the dresser, in the open, for anyone to
