"We have no difficulty concluding that the officers' entry into the third-floor common area was legal; they carried a warrant for those premises, and they were accompanied by McWebb, who provided the key that they used to open the door giving access to the third-floor common area. If the officers had known, or should have known, that the third floor contained two apartments before they entered the living quarters on the third floor, and thus had been aware of the error in the warrant, they would have been obligated to limit their search to McWebb's apartment." Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 87 (1987), found at Findlaw.com web site. Accessed May 6, 2008.
See also Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978), dissent by Justice Byron White, dissenting, footnote 11, citing United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 169, and 171 n. 7 (1974) ("The authority which justifies the third-party consent does not rest upon the law of property, with its attendant historical and legal refinements, . . . but rests rather on mutual use of the property by persons generally having joint access or control for most purposes, so that it is reasonable to recognize that any of the co-inhabitants has the right to permit the inspection in his own right and that the others have assumed the risk that one of their number might permit the common area to be searched"), found at Findlaw.com. Accessed May 8, 2008.
Arizona Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division, Guideline, Residential Common Areas, March 31, 2000, citing Arizona Revised Statutes sections 42-13401 et seq., found at Pinal County, AZ web siteArchived 2009-01-06 at the Wayback Machine. (pdf doc). Accessed May 8, 2008
Arizona Department of Revenue, Property Tax Division, Guideline, Residential Common Areas, March 31, 2000, citing Arizona Revised Statutes sections 42-13401 et seq., found at Pinal County, AZ web siteArchived 2009-01-06 at the Wayback Machine. (pdf doc). Accessed May 8, 2008
