Randolph does not give a potential defendant veto power over a search where he has to be asked first
FourthAmendment.com:
Probation search of defendant’s wife was justified because of her dirty UA, and it produced evidence which led to his federal indictment. The probation search was conducted by probation officers, too. Randolph does not give a present potential target defendant veto power where he was not asked. United States v. Blake, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14140 (10th Cir. July 3, 2008) (unpublished).*
Defendant was asleep and was in no position to object or not to the co-occupant’s consent, so Randolph does not apply. United States v. Davis, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14068, 2008 FED App. 0387N (6th Cir. July 1, 2008) (unpublished).*
Comment: These two cases involve a chronic and pointless exercise: Randolph does not grant a potential defendant veto power over a search where he has to be asked first. Actually, I believe that Randolph changed nothing for the police because they would try not to ask the target if there was somebody else without a vested interest in the search who was more likely to object.