[Mr Rogers]

Yes. Indeed, an occupant who is in jail doesn’t have total control over a residence. Why is that a shock?

From Thomas: “Accordingly, given a blank slate, I would analyze this case consistent with THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s dissent in Randolph: “A warrantless search is reasonable if police obtain the voluntary consent of a person authorized to give it.”...That is because “[c]o-occupants have ‘assumed the risk that one of their number might permit [a] common area to be searched.’”

[Altariel]

That is not the definition of “reasonable” as understood by the Founders.

[Ramius]

I’m not sure I even see the controversy here. If the person on site is authorized to grant access to the property, and grants access... That’s reasonable.

I can see it getting dicey in the opposite situation... Where the person on site DENIES access to the search but someone else not at the scene grants access (like on the phone). Seems reasonable to me to limit the granting of permission to someone actually on site at the address.

[Still Thinking]

Yes. Indeed, an occupant who is in jail doesn’t have total control over a residence. Why is that a shock?

Because now there's opportunity and incentive for the cops to game the situation by arresting a party who doesn't wish to waive their civil rights. Not a good situation. Look what it's done for asset forfeiture.