ÿWPC[8 Å# ÖUNá %/ 045U:ib£U:«w@å4%9 0DH 1mŒ 0dù] 0@e 0J¥ 0Tï 0^C 0h¡ 0r  B{ 0|˜ 0† 0š 0B* 1ul U,á 0d !U,q! D3!U>Ð!U *" 0@8"U*x"B)¢"DCË" AM#-[#Ÿˆ$L'&v~s)vÓñ* 0Ä0 0ŠS1 0 Ý1 0´}2 0Ç13 0Ûø3 0ïÓ4 AOÂ5Æ6 0D×6 D/7 BJ7 0ôg7˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular- ù-,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular $U%&D'({)*D+,Ó€6 DÒ %~§ 3|x6(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóótuvwxyz#,37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(<1$´´Ô2Ô6.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0  à2 ÿÿ$Squareð ðà0 à2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2-¦$Squareð ðà0  à ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco'ÿÿdxd< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d////7Border 1dd€-0Cþÿ << Gÿÿ #Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€,ÔÔ€,ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€,XÔÌÌJune€24,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó •Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€184€Tenn.€143,€197€S.W.2d€545€(1946).€€In€Tennessee,€the€exception€was€confined€toÏonly€one€spouse€„€"the€angry€wife."Ó  Ó€Ì BÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€!ÔÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒÄ$ÝÑ À ÑÑ Ì ÑÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€,ÔÔ€,ôÔò òà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóóó óÝ  Ý€Other€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement€include€searches€and€seizures€conductedÏincident€to€a€lawful€arrest,€those€in€ð ðplain€view,ðð€those€in€the€ð ðhot€pursuitðð€of€a€fleeing€criminal,Ïthose€limited€to€a€ð ðstop€and€friskðð€based€on€reasonable€suspicion€of€criminal€activity,€and€thoseÏbased€on€probable€cause€in€the€presence€of€exigent€circumstances.€€òòCoolidge€v.€New€Hampshireóó,Ïòòsupraóó;€òòKatz€v.€United€Statesóó,€389€U.S.€347,€88€S.Ct.€€507,€19€L.Ed.2d€576€(1967);€òòState€v.ÏMcMahanóó,€650€S.W.2d€383€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1983).ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò(gfi$µµà0  àÔ2(ÆÔ6.Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú.Ú  Ú0Ú  ÚÔ3  Ôà0` (#(#à(bÕä$¶¶à0  àà0` (#(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚÚ  Ú.Ô3  Ôà0¸ ` (#` (#à(xâr$··à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0¸ (#¸ (#à(ŒU$¸¸à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0h(#(#à(Ÿ@Æ$¹¹à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àÔ2ˆAÔ(Ú  ÚÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0Àh(#h(#à(³ýt$ººà0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  Ú0Ú  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0À(#À(#à(Çñû$»»à0  àà0` (#(#àà0¸ ` (#` (#àà0¸ (#¸ (#àà0h(#(#àà0Àh(#h(#àà0À(#À(#àÔ2ˆAÔÚ  ÚaÚ  Ú)Ô3  Ôà0p(#(#à€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd(¡+2Tf$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÑÀ°ÑÑ̰ÑÒ„°ÒÒ4°ÒÔ€X¿ÀXXXÔÔ€ò@’òXX¿ÀÔò òà Œ àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóóó óÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€!ÔÓ&€))X„d&ÓÑ#€))Xd#ÑÔ€+ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ 4 ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÔ€,ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€ XXdædÈ7ÑØ ØÓ&€..XÐd&Ó›à@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURT€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòFOR€PUBLICATIONÌÌó óóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœò òFiled:€€June€24,€1996ó ó›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff„Appellant,à àà àà à)à àROBERTSON€CRIMINALÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌ€Vs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€E.€WALTON,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àà à€€JUDGEÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌCHARLES€WILLIAM€BARTRAM,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant„Appellee.à àà à)à àNo.€€œ01„S„01„9601„CC„00022›ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€120;+'h|øº` ç `€€Lß›ÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òòòFor€Appellant:à àà àà àà àFor€Appellee:ó óóóÌÌCharles€Bursonà àà àà àà àMichael€R.€JonesÌAttorney€General€&€Reporterà àà àPublic€DefenderÌà àà àà àà àà àà àClarksville,€TennesseeÌMichael€E.€Mooreà àà àà àà àÌDeputy€Attorney€Generalà àà àà àÌNashville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àÌÌœDent€MorrisÌAssistant€District€AttorneyÌSpringfield,€Tennessee›ÌÌ̛̜ÌÌò òÔ€,„Ôà@ àO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óÌÔ€,XÔÌÌÌÌÌÌCOURT€OF€œCRIMINAL€APPEALS›€REVERSED;ÌœREMANDED›€TO€TRIAL€COURT.à àà àœà àà à›à àANDERSON,€J.ÇÑ  ÑÓÓà àWe€granted€this€appeal€to€re„examine€this€Court's€adoption€of€the€œso„Ïcalled€"angry›€wife"€exception€to€the€rule€that€a€warrantless€search€and€seizure€isÏpresumed€unreasonable€unless€there€is€a€valid€consent€to€the€search.€€FiftyÏyears€ago,€in€òòKelley€v.€Stateóóœ× ƒ3 ××  ×›,€this€Court€viewed€the€marital€relationship€as€anÏagency€relationship€between€œthe€husband€and€wife›€and,€therefore,€reasonedÏthat€the€consent€of€œthe€wife›€would€bind€the€œhusband›€unless€the€consentingÏwife's€actions€were€hostile€and€adverse€to€her€husband's€interest.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court,€relying€on€the€òòKelleyóó€precedent,€suppressed€the€evidenceÏobtained€in€a€warrantless€search€and€dismissed€this€case€because€consent€toÏthe€search€was€given€by€an€angry€wife.€€The€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed.ÌÌà àAfter€careful€consideration,€we€have€determined€that€òòKelleyóó€should€beÏoverruled€as€there€is€no€longer€a€valid€reason€for€the€rule€in€either€law€or€logic.€ÏWe€adopt€instead€the€modern€rule€that€the€consent€to€a€search€of€one€whoÏpossesses€common€authority€over€premises€is€valid€against€the€absent€non„consenting€person€with€whom€that€authority€is€shared.ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment€affirming€the€trialÏcourt€is€reversed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àòòò òBACKGROUNDóóó óÌà àJo€Marie€Bartram€called€the€police€as€a€result€of€a€domestic€disputeÏbetween€herself€and€her€husband,€Charles€Bartram.€€The€police€responded€andÏduring€the€call€to€the€Bartram€residence,€one€of€the€officers€seized€a€plastic€bagÏof€marijuana€from€the€refrigerator.€€As€a€result,€Charles€Bartram€was€indicted€onÏtwo€counts€of€possession€of€marijuana€with€intent€to€sell€or€deliver.€€He€moved€toÏsuppress€the€marijuana,€arguing€that€it€was€illegally€seized€because€it€was€aÏwarrantless€search€without€consent€in€violation€of€the€Tennessee€and€UnitedÏStates€Constitutions.ÌÌà àAt€the€hearing€on€Bartramððs€motion€to€suppress,€the€evidence€wasÏdisputed.€€The€police€officer€testified€he€was€standing€in€the€living€room€when€JoÏMarie€Bartram€walked€into€the€kitchen,€opened€the€door€to€the€refrigerator,Ïpulled€out€a€plastic€bag,€and€said,€ð ðHere,€this€is€what€heððs€been€doing.ðð€€JoÏMarie€Bartram€then,€according€to€the€officer,€gave€him€the€plastic€bag€containingÏmarijuana.€ÌÌà àJo€Marie€Bartram,€however,€told€a€different€story.€€While€she€admittedÏopening€the€refrigerator€door,€she€claims€she€pointed€to€a€can€of€òòbeeróó€and€said,Ïð ðhere€is€his€problem.ðð€€According€to€Jo€Marie€Bartram,€the€officer€then€walkedÍover,€opened€the€door€to€the€side„by„side€freezer€compartment,€noticed€the€bagÏof€marijuana,€and€seized€it.ÌÌà àAfter€hearing€the€testimony€of€the€officer€and€Mrs.€Bartram,€the€trial€judgeÏby€implication€credited€the€officer's€testimony€and€granted€the€defendantððsÏmotion€to€suppress€ð ðbased€upon€òòKelley€v.€Stateóó.ð ð€€There,€this€Court€held€that€anÏangry€wifeððs€consent€to€a€search€is€not€effective€to€waive€her€husbandððsÏprotection€against€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€and€render€admissibleÏevidence€seized€in€the€search.ÌÌà àSince€the€evidence€suppressed€by€the€trial€court€was€the€only€evidenceÏagainst€the€defendant,€Charles€Bartram,€the€trial€court€dismissed€the€case.€€TheÏState€appealed,€and€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appeals€affirmed€the€trial€courtððsÏsuppression€decision€and€dismissal,€stating,€ð ð[œu]ntil›€such€time€as€òòKelleyóó€isÏoverruled,€the€case€constitutes€the€law€of€this€State,€binding€upon€this€Court€andÏthe€trial€courts.ððÌÌà àThereafter,€we€granted€the€State€permission€to€appeal,€and€for€theÏreasons€articulated€below,€we€now€overrule€òòKelley€v.€Stateóó.ÌÌÓ  Óò òòòANGRY€WIFE€EXCEPTIONóóó óÌÓ  Óà àThe€State,€in€this€appeal,€argues€that€the€rule€announced€in€òòKelleyóó€isÏcompletely€anachronistic€and€without€basis€in€law€or€policy€and€should€beÏoverruled.€€On€the€other€hand,€Bartram€argues€that€the€exception€is€based€onÏpublic€policy€considerations€and€aimed€at€preserving€family€harmony,€and€asÏsuch,€should€be€re„affirmed.€ÌÌà àThe€Fourth€Amendment€to€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àò òÌà8 àUnreasonable€searches€and€seizures.ó ó€€The€right€of€theÏpeople€to€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,€and€effectsÏagainst€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures€shall€not€be€violated.€ÏNo€warrant€shall€issue€but€upon€probable€cause€supported€byÏoath€or€affirmation€and€particularly€describing€the€place€to€theÏsearched€and€the€person€or€things€to€be€seized.ÌÌÌÓÓLikewise,€Article€1,€Section€7€of€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee€guarantees€thatÏthe€people€shall€be€secure€in€their€persons,€houses,€papers,€and€possessionsÏfrom€unreasonable€searches€and€seizures.€€Accordingly,€both€the€FourthÏAmendment€to€the€United€States€Constitution€and€Article€1,€Section€7€of€theÏTennessee€Constitution€prohibit€ð ðunreasonableðð€searches€and€seizures.€€TheÏState€may€not€invade€this€personal€constitutional€right€of€the€individual€citizenÏexcept€under€the€most€exigent€circumstances.ÌÌà àThis€broad€protection€from€unreasonable€search€and€seizure€originatedÏwith€the€ancient€concept€that€a€man's€home€is€his€castle.€€William€œPitt›,€Earl€ofÍChatham,€in€a€speech€on€the€floor€of€the€English€House€of€Commons€in€œ1763,›Ïeloquently€articulated€the€individual€liberty€protected:€€ÌÓÓà8 àÌà8 àThe€poorest€man€may€in€his€cottage€bid€defiance€to€all€the€force€ofÏthe€Crown.€€It€may€be€frail;€its€roof€may€shake;€the€wind€may€blowÏthrough€it;€the€storms€may€enter,€„but€the€King€of€England€cannotÏenter;€all€his€forces€dare€not€cross€the€threshold€of€the€ruinedÏtenement.ÌÌÌÓÓòòUnited€States€v.€Nelsonóó,€459€F.2d€884,€885€(1972).€ÌÌà àA€warrantless€search€and€seizure,€therefore,€is€presumed€unreasonableÏunless€it€falls€into€one€of€the€narrowly€defined€exceptions,€or€exigentÏcircumstances,€to€the€warrant€requirement.€€òòCoolidge€v.€New€Hampshireóó,€403ÏU.S.€443,€454„55,€91€S.Ct.€2022,€2032,€29€L.Ed.2d€564,€576€(1971).€€The€mereÏexistence€of€these€circumstances€does€not€necessarily€validate€a€warrantlessÏsearch.€€As€pointed€out€in€òòNelsonóó,€òòsupraóó,€exceptions€are€"jealously€and€carefullyÏdrawn."€€There€must€be€a€showing€by€those€asserting€the€exception€that€theÏexigencies€of€the€situation€made€the€search€imperative.€€The€burden€is€on€thoseÏseeking€the€exception€to€show€the€need.€€It€is,€of€course,€well€settled€that€one€ofÏthe€exceptions€to€the€warrant€requirement€is€a€search€conducted€pursuant€toÏconsent.€€òòSchneckloth€v.€Bustamonteóó,€412€U.S.€218,€93€S.Ct.€2041,€36€L.Ed.2dÍ854€(1973);€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€889€S.W.2d€219,€221€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993).× ƒ4 ××  ×€ÏThe€sufficiency€and€validity€of€consent€depends€largely€upon€the€facts€andÏcircumstances€presented€by€each€particular€case.€€òòJacksonóó,€889€S.W.2d€at€221.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòKelleyóó,€this€Court€considered€whether€an€ð ðangry€wifeððsðð€consent€toÏsearch€was€valid€so€as€to€render€evidence€seized€in€the€search€admissibleÏagainst€her€husband€in€a€criminal€prosecution.€€Kelleyððs€wife€called€police€to€theÏcoupleððs€home€to€arrest€Kelley€for€beating€her.€€When€the€officers€arrived,€KelleyÏwas€gone.€€His€wife,€however,€escorted€the€officers€inside€the€premises€andÏshowed€them€several€jars€of€whiskey,€which€she€said€belonged€to€her€husband.€€ÏThe€officers€seized€the€whiskey,€and€a€as€a€result,€Kelley€was€convicted€ofÏpossessing€intoxicating€liquors.€€He€appealed,€and€this€Court€reversed€theÏconviction,€holding€that€the€whiskey€was€obtained€by€reason€of€an€unlawful€andÏillegal€search€and€seizure.€€The€òòKelleyóó€court's€analysis€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[œT]he›€wife€was€angry€at€her€husband,€wasÏexceedingly€hostile€in€her€attitude€toward€him,€hadÏcalled€the€officers€to€arrest€him€and€then,€when€theÏofficers€appeared,€did€her€utmost€to€get€the€plaintiff€inÏerror€into€trouble.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 àà àWe€are€of€the€opinion€that€in€suchÏcircumstances€the€wife€had€no€right€to€waive€herÏhusbandððs€protection€against€unreasonableÏsearches€and€seizures€any€more€than€any€otherÏperson€would€have€had.€€Her€whole€attitude€wasÏcontrary€to€his€interests,€and€it€could€not€be€said€thatÏshe€was€acting€in€any€sense€in€the€family€interestÏwith€any€authority€to€waive€rights€which€mightÏotherwise€properly€arise€out€of€the€relationship.ÌÌÌòòKelleyóó,€184€Tenn.€at€146,€197€S.W.2d€at€546.ÌÌÌÓÓà àAt€the€time€of€this€Courtððs€decision€in€òòKelleyóó,€the€question€of€third€partyÏconsent,€including€spousal€consent,€was€analyzed€by€some€courts€withÏreference€to€agency€principles.€€3€La€Fave,€òòSearch€and€Seizureóó,€ðð€8.4(a),€p.€759Ï(œ3d›€ed.€1996).€€Those€courts€were€of€the€view€that€the€marital€relationship€itselfÏgave€rise€to€an€agency€relationship€between€the€spouses,€and€under€thatÏtheory,€the€consent€of€one€spouse€would€ordinarily€bind€the€other€spouse.€€òòIdóó.€ÏGenerally,€courts€more€closely€scrutinized€the€consent€given€by€the€wife€than€byÏthe€husband€(apparently€because€of€now€antiquated€views€of€women's€rights).€ÏApplying€this€close€scrutiny€in€the€agency€context,€a€number€of€courts€held€thatÏan€angry€wifeððs€consent€was€not€sufficient€to€bind€the€husband€because€herÏactions€were€hostile€and€obviously€contrary€to€the€interests€of€her€husband.€€òòIdóó.Ïat€276.€€It€is€upon€this€proposition€that€the€decision€in€òòKelleyóó€apparently€wasÏbased.€€òòIdóó.€€If€applied€evenly€to€both€spouses,€that€rule€may€have€had€someÏjustification€when€courts€were€relying€upon€agency€principles€to€analyze€andÍuphold€searches€based€on€third„party€consent.€€It€is,€however,€quite€clearlyÏinconsistent€with€more€recent€persuasive€authority€which€rejects€the€agencyÏtheory€as€the€test€for€analyzing€the€validity€of€third„party€consent€searches.€ÌÌà àA€more€modern€test,€as€enunciated€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court,Ïis€that€the€consent€of€one€who€possesses€common€authority€over€premises€orÏeffects€is€valid€as€against€the€absent,€non„consenting€person€with€whom€thatÏauthority€is€shared.€€€òòUnited€States€v.€Matlockóó,€415€U.S.€164,€171,€€94€S.Ct.€988,Ï993,€39€L.E.2d€242€(1974).€€The€court€defined€common€authority€as€the€ð ðmutualÏuse€of€the€property€by€persons€generally€having€joint€access€or€control€for€mostÏpurposes,€so€that€it€is€reasonable€to€recognize€that€any€of€the€co„inhabitants€hasÏthe€right€to€permit€the€inspection€in€his€own€right€and€that€the€others€haveÏassumed€the€risk€that€one€of€their€number€might€permit€the€common€area€to€beÏsearched.ðð€€òòIdóó.,€415€U.S.€at€171,€n.€7,€94€S.Ct.€at€993,€n.€7.€€ÌÌà àEven€before€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€rendered€its€decision€inÏòòMatlockóó,€Tennessee€courts€had€adopted€and€applied€the€ð ðcommon€authorityððÏtest.€€For€example,€in€òòMcGee€v.€Stateóó,€2€Tenn.€Crim.€App.€100,€451€S.W.2d€709,Ï712€(1969),€the€intermediate€court€stated€that€ð ð[p]ersons€having€equal€rights€toÏuse€or€occupation€of€the€premises€may€consent€to€a€search€of€them€and€suchÏsearch€will€be€binding€upon€the€co„occupants.€€A€joint€user€has€authority€toÏconsent€to€a€search.ðð€€Following€òòMatlockóó,€the€common€authority€test€was€appliedÍin€Tennessee€in€the€context€of€a€spousal€consent€case.€€In€òòState€v.€Pritchettóó,€621ÏS.W.2d€127,€134€(Tenn.€1981),€this€Court€stated,€ð ð[a]€wife€can€consent€to€theÏsearch€of€her€home,€and€if€objects€are€found€which€would€incriminate€herÏhusband,€such€objects€are€admissible€in€evidence.ðð€€(Citations€omitted.)€€FromÏour€review€of€the€relevant€authorities,€it€appears€that€òòKelleyóó€was€the€last€remnantÏof€a€dying€rule€which€œshould›€œnow€be›€finally€put€to€rest.ÌÌà àIn€our€view,€there€is€no€reason,€either€in€law€or€in€logic,€to€deny€to€a€wifeÏwho€has€common€authority€over€the€marital€residence,€the€right€to€consent€to€aÏsearch€of€that€residence€simply€because€she€is€angry€with€her€husband€at€theÏtime€she€gives€her€consent.€€The€public€policy€basis€of€preserving€familyÏharmony€which€the€defendant€argues€supports€the€rule€is€unpersuasive.€€WhenÏone€spouse€is€willing€to€consent€to€a€search€of€the€marital€residence,€there€isÏmost€likely€little€marital€harmony€left€to€be€preserved.€€òòœCf›óó.€òòState€v.€Hurleyóó,€876ÏS.W.2d€57,€74€(Tenn.€1993).€€But€even€if€some€semblance€of€marital€harmonyÏremains,€that€consideration€is€irrelevant€to€the€more€important€and€separateÏprinciple€that€the€wife€has€an€independent€right€of€consent€based€on€herÏauthority€over€the€premises.€€Accordingly,€both€on€reason€and€precedent,€theÏcorrect€answer€to€the€question€before€us€is€that€òòKelleyóó€must€be€overruled,€andÏtherefore,€the€search€to€which€Jo€Marie€Bartram€consented€is€valid€against€herÏhusband.€€We€agree€with€the€Massachusetts€Supreme€Court,€that€in€a€caseÏsuch€as€this,€ð ðthe€wifeððs€action€is€not€dependent€on€the€finding€of€any€express€orÍimplied€authority€from€the€husband€to€consent€to€the€search,€but€is€based€uponÏher€own€right,€at€least€equal€to€that€of€the€husband,€to€the€use,€enjoyment€andÏcontrol€of€their€household€premises.ðð€€òòCommonwealth€v.€Martinóó,€264€N.E.2dÏ366,€369€(Mass.€1970);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòState€v.€McCarthyóó,€269€N.E.2d€424,€428€(OhioÏ1971);€òòUnited€States€v.€œMcAlpine›óó,€919€F.2d€1461€(10th€Cir.€1990);€òòUnited€StatesÏv.€Lawlessóó,€465€F.2d€422€(4th€Cir.€1972);€òòRoberts€v.€United€Statesóó,€332€F.2dÏ892,€896„97€(8th€Cir.€1964);€3€La€Fave€òòSearch€and€Seizureóó,€ðð€8.4€(a),€p.€759€(œ3d›Ïed.€1996)€(specifically€noting€that€the€view€in€òòKelleyóó€ð ðis€not€soundðð).ÌÌÌà@ àòòò òCONCLUSIONóóó óÌà àBecause€we€have€determined€that€there€is€no€longer€a€valid€basis,€inÏeither€law€or€logic,€for€the€continued€existence€of€the€ð ðangry€wifeðð€exception,ÏòòKelley€v.€Stateóó,€184€Tenn.€143,€197€S.W.2d€545€(Tenn.€1946),€is€herebyÏoverruled.€€We€adopt€in€its€place€the€common€authority€rule€as€outlined€above.€ÏAccordingly,€the€Court€of€Criminal€Appealsðð€judgment€affirming€the€trial€courtððsÏdecision€suppressing€the€evidence€and€dismissing€this€case€is€reversed,€andÏthis€cause€remanded€to€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings.€€Costs€of€thisÏappeal€are€taxed€to€the€defendant,€Charles€William€Bartram.ÌÌÓÓ€à àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àE.€RILEY€ANDERSON,€JUSTICEÌÌÌò òœCONCUR:Ìó ó›ÌœBirch,€C.J.ÌDrowota,›€Reid,€œand›€œWhite,€JJ.›