Can police act on the consent of a remaining roommate if the other roommate has been removed for an unrelated reason?

The correct choice in this scenario reflects the legal principle that a remaining occupant may provide valid consent to search shared premises even after one occupant has been removed. In this context, when one roommate has been removed for an unrelated reason, the remaining roommate retains the authority to consent to searches in areas they jointly occupy. This stems from the concept of common authority over premises, where any individual who has joint control can grant consent to law enforcement.

This principle is grounded in the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In assessing whether a search is reasonable, courts consider whether the consenting party has authority over the area to be searched and whether the individual granting consent is in a position to do so. Consequently, if the police have a valid consent from the remaining roommate, they do not need the prior consent of the removed roommate to proceed with a search of shared areas.

Furthermore, the other options are not applicable in this situation. The need for both roommates' consent does not hold in cases where consent is validly given by one with shared access. Similarly, a warrant is not necessary when there is valid consent from one occupant. Finally, the presence of suspicion regarding illegal activity is also irrelevant to the validity of consent, as consent alone can justify a search