=StevenJ_420Law;2595005]Because you have "I still believe the propaganda that I have rights" disease. It's curable though.
Now, I said I have to do some reading before I comment anymore on this and I shall stick to it other than to say; I have not read enough of the info Carl provided and associated info found through research but I still, at the moment, suggest the innocent resident has a right to claim his constitutional rights.
but within this (from Carls post) there is a glimmer of hope for my position:
Example: Officer could not search a "female" purse located on the floorboard in front of the passenger seat when the driver was male and the passenger was female solely on the basis of the driver's parole search condition. The court found "nothing to overcome the obvious presumption that the purse belonged to the sole female occupant of the vehicle who was not subject to a parole-condition search. (Baker (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1159-1160.) (Note that this decision is inconsistent with existing precedent in its analysis and reasoning.)
It did not address whether the probationer had access to the purse but since it was obviously the private property of the innocent party, there was no right to search the purse. and yes, I did bold that last sentence.
I'll be back another time to comment. I need to seek information.