Consider the following examples and explain whether you think the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A person who is a short-term...

In Georgia v. Randolph (2006) the
court held that when one resident in a house denies police consent to search, they can't
search the property based on another resident's consent. So the problem, I'd say, would
lie in determining exactly what a "short-term" guest would be. The rationale in
Georgia v. Randolph was that "co-equal roommates" can't speak for
each other. This was a departure from its reasoning in previous cases. But this example
is not talking about "co-equal roommates," and clearly property owners (or even rentors)
should be able to make decisions regarding their own homes, including granting consent
to search. So I would say, based on the logic of the cases previous to Georgia
v. Randolph, which weren't totally overturned by the 2006 decision, that,
with the consent of the owner, police could search a house regardless of the short-term
guests' objections.